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.'"
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.
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?"
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
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.'
That's what I thought.
Now, I'm Canadian, so I'm not entirely versed in US Law (having learned most of it from Law and Order) but my understanding was:
The US Constitution is a list of things the Government is allowed to do. If it's not on the list, it's not okay.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Obama doesn't care. His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?
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!
You are correct, as far as the federal government goes. The state governments were not similarly limited except where the Constitution says they were to be. That has always been open to interpretation by the courts, with bizarre results such as the things that explicitly refer to Congress being imputed to the states long before the things that are worded in outright "nobody can do this" terms were. Classic example: First Amendment says 'Congress' but has long been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Second Amendment says 'shall not be infringed' by anyone, but is still up in the air.
The problem as far as the federal government goes is the commerce clause taken together with rational basis review. If Congress passes a law that says 'Whereas interstate commerce is affected by the lederhosen industry, all citizens are required to wear lederhosen on Tuesdays. Violation is a felony punishable by five years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.', that's enough to say that they were exercising their power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Rational basis review means that a court won't overturn a commerce clause-based law if there is any rational way that the law relates to interstate commerce. And that includes enforcement when the actual act had nothing to do with interstate commerce.
For instance, a federal law that fixes grain prices will result in subsistence farmers being punished for violating it. (True story.) A federal law that says machine guns affect interstate commerce can be used to punish you for building a machine gun out of scrap metal even if none of it ever crossed state lines. (True story.) There are very few exceptions where the Supreme Court (after FDR and the New Deal) has thrown out a law for overstepping the authority of Congress under the commerce clause.
Long story short: Congress is allowed to do anything it wants, because everything has some effect on interstate commerce.
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.
That's correct but if they actually follow that, then the government is basically required to be tiny, and politicians can't really bribe the voters if the .gov is tiny so they ignore it.
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?
Sure. Congress can, under the interstate commerce clause, regulate the amount of wheat you grow to feed your own chickens. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
Congress can criminalize, under the interstate commerce clause, mere possession of a machine gun that has never itself been in interstate commerce. United States v. Stewart, which the 9th Circuit was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress can criminalize marijuana that has never been in interstate commerce because locally grown cannabis changes the supply and demand for the product in the interstate trade. The 9th Circuit ended up reinstating the machine gun guy's conviction even though he built the gun from scratch without crossing state lines.
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).
Courts have ruled, yes, but they still have no Consitutional authority to do anything of the sort that you've highlighted above. It's an abomination that we've allowed our government to so wildly overstep its authority.
Do you have ESP?
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.
so I'm not entirely versed in US Law (having learned most of it from Law and Order)
That's ok. Everything I know about Canada comes from Rush lyrics and South Park.
"But this one goes to 11!"
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