Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I guess I didn't really need a cell phone anyway.
If you don't want anyone to know where you are, you shouldn't go there.
[[/TROLL]]
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!
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.
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
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.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
And why do you think they are keeping that data? Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so? The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game, sounds awfully suspicious.
See EFF page http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/02/08, but the interesting bit is FBI testimony from page 39 in this document http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/Filed%20Cell%20Tracking%20Brief.pdf
And if you read the 10th amendment at face value, nowhere is there authorization for quite literally the majority of the federal government. The very existence and authority of most federal agencies relies on the **spirit** of the Constitution's enumerated powers, not the actual hard letter.
Therefore, they should be required to abide by the **spirit** of the 4th amendment.
If someone's general location is not protected by the 4th amendment, lets see a web site that shows the "general location" of all federal employees. Seems only fair.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution. But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?"
Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis. An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims. This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal, but it probably won't be.
Same as the old boss. I'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy. No matter what the government may say, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
just WHY are they retaining this information in the first place?
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
1) if the feds require the data retention, then a warrant is necessary to access the customer's information.
2a) if the feds do not require data retention, then a warrant is required to access the carrier's information.
2b) if the feds do not require data retention and there is not a reasonable business reason to retain the information, find a carrier that doesn't retain the information beyond what is needed for routine business use.
It's reasonable for businesses to keep statistical, summary information that cannot be traced back to a customer pretty much indefinitely, well, for years anyways. It's useful for planning and the like.
It's reasonable for businesses to keep billing data until the billing is finalized. This will normally be 60-90 days after the bill is paid unless they are subject to having the billing opened up at a later date and need the records to protect their interests.
Location data needs to be kept only for a few days until it is stripped of personal information UNLESS it is needed for billing, for example, off-network roaming, reconciling a bill with a 3rd party carrier, etc.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations
sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness
of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The government logic being used here reminds of the incredible leaps of logic my 4-yr makes to defend himself from punishment.
Is very simple, my location at any given moment of any given day is none of the government's business. You want to know, get a warrant. None of this loop-hole business. Makes me happy to not own a cell phone, since I am absolutely certain they are ALREADY tracking innocent citizens in this manner on a regular basis.
Bearded Dragon
more than likely they are wanting the tower data - BUT depending on the phone - and the towers that may be "hey i was talking to him" or "hey the 3 of us where listening to him here is the strength so you can triangulate" or "yea that phone associated with me - here is it's header data - oh see the GPS info in it?" either way - you may have a phone that only allows GPS data on 911 calls - i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there. Most people have no idea about the e911 location information for emergency calls being added in after Sept.11th.. And if i remember correctly there was recently evidence that some carriers where having the location data on all the time not just for 911 by default. if they can get it past that they don't need a warrant - then what they find in the records would be on the same level as seeing something in plain sight. meaning that even if now it doesn't normally have GPS location - in 2 years it might be the norm.. and they already have a warrant waver.. as far as i'm concerned they should need a warrant to get it.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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.
Corporatism != Free Market
I know it's bad form to reply to your self but wanted to note this.. A warrant gives the police special access to a location or information, something not publicly available. If it goes through that they don't need a warrant then could we not use this as a stepping stone to justify any member of the public requesting the same information from the telecom's? not just for our selves but for any one.. it's just a different way of looking at it - and one that should commonly be viewed
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
They need the government's blessing to make a profit so are all to willing to turn over your records upon request.
I think the "to make a profit" part might be a stretch. Maybe it's not always the case, but I seem to hear a lot about the high profit margins for cell phone companies and ISPs (which does exclude traditional phone and TV, so maybe they are having harder times). I think part of it is they want to be able to keep their fake competition and continue exploitation of the consumer, and playing nice with the FBI is one way to help that.
The title is confusing because "warrantless" in this case means "without a warrant" (Warrant being a glam metal band from the 80s), whereas
"warrantless" is usually taken to mean "unjustified",
Stop right there.
unwarranted having no justification, groundless
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
There's no need to split hairs. If the cops had grounds for a warrant, and could justify their reasoning to an independent magistrate, they would have a warrant. A warrantless search is an unwarranted search.
This is basic english, folks.
you can bet they are violating the intent. As the government has expanded so has the explanation for everything they do. The write long winded justifications all so that by the time you get done reading it you forget what it was about. It almost as if they hope that people opposed will just throw up their hands and give up.
Remember, those who clutch to their Constitution are now the radicals.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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. "
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!
Yeah, because Republicans have been the bastion of reason and protectors of constitutional rights and freedoms lately. Did you forget about the USA PATRIOT Act already? Warrantless wiretaps of the previous administration? Mindlessly and wantonly increasing airport security rules? Did you just crawl out of Vault 101?
Far be it from me to tell you who to vote for, but voting blindly for any one party only seems to make this mess worse.
Unlike some other states, we have strong protections for privacy in our state, and you can't even install a GPS tracking device on a car here without a warrant, or enable that On*Star tracking feature without written permission from the vehicle owner.
Thus, anyone tracking cell phones in our state - except in federal waterways or on a federal base or in a federal park, would still need a warrant.
Anyone.
Including the feds.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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?
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.
Bush 2.0? Ok, maybe, but only because the other proposed "feature set" wasn't selected. We were going to have a 4 year circus one way or the other.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
> these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts
These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...
Yes. Yes we are...
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Take a look at what happened to the QWest CEO when he told the government his company wasn't going to be doing something that sure looks to be illegal. Not only did they lose a lot of government business, but he personally was charged with insider stock trading.
If you say no to those people you'd better be squeaky clean (and even then you might end up framed for something).
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
No. This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.
I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.
Your surety is mistaken. I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama. I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome. Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.
"[...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,"
That is exactly correct. The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do. Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).
But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct. The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.
"but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."
The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote. That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.
Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution? If the latter, could you elaborate please? I am not following, but I am deeply interested.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
There has never been great outcry in the mainstream media over any of this, regardless of who was president at the time.
Not really.
It would seem that both the republicans and democrats are hell bent on destroying America...
But perhaps its because we the people are hell bent on destroying America. Perhaps we just dont really get what America is... We've grown into this "NEW America"... where we think selfishly rather than thoughtfully with respect to our own freedoms and others.
I think both political parties are full of shit and need to be burned off the planet, but I fear that entire country itself is just as careless with the original ideals of America.
We're fucking doomed.
Well, our choice was between the Red Bureaucracy and the Fascist Boot. What the hell were we supposed to do that didn't involve fire?