Feds Push For Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

An anonymous reader writes "An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance). The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.'"

Comments

Really?

[LaminatorX]

This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!

But what about the spirit?

[ircmaxell]

What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.

Re:But what about the spirit?

[Thoreauly Nuts]

What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

The American Constitution is dead. It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited by the frauds who claim to represent us. What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.

In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government. In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.

Re:But what about the spirit?

[ircmaxell]

Well, to understand #2, you have to understand the times. It was written right after the revolutionary war. A war where the people banded together to fight against their government... They used militias as organized fighting units. So, after the war, they put #2 in there to make sure that people always had the right to form their own militia and fight back against their government if they deemed it tyranical or for any other reason. That's the only way #2 would make sense in the context of how and where it was written. And the fact that it was put as the 2nd amendment (right under the freedom of speech) shows how important they felt it was.

Sure, it's my interpretation, but it's an educated interpretation based on why I think someone would have written it in the 1880's...

Re:But what about the spirit?

[unix1]

What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

But it DOES violate. From their own argument:

"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"

Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.

In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:

a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:

- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records
- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records
- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records
- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records
- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records
- etc.

Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?

Re:But what about the spirit?

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

It is not outdated. Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't. They should be thrown in jail. There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the consequences of the actions we're taking in government now because they lived through it in Britain. That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th. Or other ones like "Remember that time is money." which also continues to hold true.
Just because there is new technology, does not change the ways laws should be enforced. A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter. If you intercept a letter, it's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone's cell phone conversation. The government would like people to believe that there's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism.

Re:But what about the spirit?

[lidocaineus]

I'm not as USian

Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American". I stopped reading right there.

Re:Well, in fairness

[venom85]

So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there? If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building? I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life? That's all ridiculous. Just because I don't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong. I just like my privacy, and they're interfering with that. It's not like it's anything new in this country (USA), but it's still wrong. Plain and simple.

Re:What happened to warrants?

[Itninja]

They only need a warrant if the data owner demands one before compliance. The thing is, the large telecoms are lapdogs to the federal government. They need the government's blessing to make a profit so are all to willing to turn over your records upon request.

Re:Well, in fairness

[drDugan]

This argument, while never voiced due to its absurdity seems the most common rationale for removing privacy protections.

The comment not a joke at all. It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt. You know, kind of like calling a failed politician, "Fucking Retarded" (you're brilliant, Stephen). See? Satire.

Re:Well, in fairness

[Locke2005]

Seeing as how the feds are not above blackmail, e.g. "Help us nail this guy or we'll tell your wife where you were last Saturday," I'd have to agree with you. The reason we require warrants is to attempt to prevent abuses of authority.

I thought Bush was the fascist

[WCMI92]

Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.

No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.

Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.

Shocked by Obama? This is who he is...

[inthealpine]

I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder... From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights": "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.

Re:Hope and Change, eh?

[Malk-a-mite]

Anonymous Troll writes:
"I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. "

... reading fundamentals works for me.

FTFA:
"Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. "

Gasp! Shock! Amazement!
People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!

Re:Have a problem with this?

[oneTheory]

I'd mod you up if I could. Partisan hacks on both sides try to tell you that their party will do it right next time. Liars! No president or legislators from either party have reined in government powers in recent history.

I liken America to a child with 2 abusive parents. They each play off the other to win the child over then proceed to beat the crap out of them. Then the other parent comes to the child's rescue with candy and toys, telling them they'll be good to them, back and forth never changing their ways. Are we really this stupid?

Re:Well, in fairness

[h4rr4r]

The better question is why is the data retained for any time at all?

It should never be needed later, and should only be available while you are talking to that tower.

Re:Well, in fairness

[Shotgun]

The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.

And how do you get on their radar? Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him? Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard? Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony? Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?

(The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)

Re:Well, in fairness

[Shotgun]

This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE,

Then what is the problem with getting a warrant? The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.

Re:Well, in fairness

[CTalkobt]

I'm not really sure that you could annoymize the data reliably... Assuming we're just talking about cell tower "semi-gps" location tracking I've seen it as accurate as 200ft. When the location patterns show an individual residing at a location for multiple nights it's very easy to tie that into an address lookup.

If multiple individuals reside at the address additional criteria can be gleaned by also tying it into where the cell being tracked goes from 9-5 daily.

Any time you begin to go down a slippery slope you've already lost. Warrents should always be required.

Re:Well, in fairness

[Shotgun]

Next, you will explain to us all how the "blue code of silence" doesn't exist.

I've known enough cops to know that:
- the job makes you a paranoid, egomaniac nut job.
- cops "protect" each other.

The founding fathers knew that to. That why we rely on an independant magistrate to issue warrants to protect citizens, not "filling out a form" or "manager approval".

Re:Well, in fairness

[ajs]

It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt.

No, actually, that was just his lead-in to his actual point:

But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

In other words, you have a CEO of a major, public corporation saying, "you can't trust us to keep your data private because, good intentions aside, the feds will slap us with a national security note and it's game over." Funny how I don't recall Yahoo!, Microsoft or any of the other major players pushing this point. Perhaps Google is the only one that gets these requests... or perhaps Schmidt is the only one telling you anything.