Judge Nixes Warrantless Cell Phone Location Data

Front page first-timer poena.dare writes "The government sought warrantless access to 113 days of location data for a Verizon Wireless customer. On Monday, a judge refused the request (PDF), ruling that cell phone users have an expectation of privacy in location information. 'There is no meaningful Fourth Amendment distinction between content and other forms of information, the disclosure of which to the Government would be equally intrusive and reveal information society values as private,' said Judge Nicholas Garaufis. Privacy advocates in DC will be cheering as soon as they climb out from under their desks!"

Comments

FIRST BITCHSLAP!

[IonOtter]

May there be many more!

Yay Judge Garaufis!

Re:FIRST BITCHSLAP!

[EdIII]

Celebrations are hardly warranted here.

This was one judge who made a correct decision and refused. However, Obama screwed us all over when he did not follow through on one his campaign promises when he let the carriers off the hook, and everyone else involved, in the warrantless surveillance of US Citizens.

Verizon Wireless refused in this instance... but what should be far more concerning is that Verizon Wireless actually has 113 days of location data. It did NOT specify which days those were either. So far all we know, there is a Verizon Wireless database that can be used to see everywhere we have been and predict our behavior. Not to mention, also figure out what businsesses and people are at those locations at the same time.

Basically, if you are afraid of Google indexing everything on the web and just taking pictures from the road, having Verizon Wireless being able to construct a complete profile of you based on your locations and cross-referencing other databases should be a startling revelation.

I knew that with the e911 laws they had to isolate you within 100 meters right now (I think, different phases had different requirements), but I was not under the impression that Verizon Wireless would store data that massive. For what purpose could they possibly need historical positioning data?

It's not anonymous data, or data that has been made anonymous, because the Feds are requesting specifics, so no demographics and usage bullshit will explain this.

I would think everybody needs to wake up and at least realize the big picture here.

Facebook, Google, Twitter, your ISP, and your wireless carrier can apparently be used to strip away all privacy, not just from you, but from everyone.

So even if I don't participate and shut off the wireless phone, or go to a pre-paid with a forward so that I cannot be reliably tracked, I still need to recognize that you walking into my home creates a record that a relationship of some kind exists between us.

Sure, call me paranoid. However, has it not been demonstrated in the past that if the tools are available, they will be used? Hoover and many other governments have proved it already.

This is not a victory.

A victory will be when it is illegal, punishable by prison terms, for any wireless carrier to record positioning data.

Location data

[md65536]

"Privacy advocates in DC will be cheering as soon as they climb out from under their desks!"

in DC... under their desks...

WHY would you rile privacy advocates by going and posting their locations?

Re:Big Whoop

[icebike]

Lock tight rules for suing corporations?

You are joking, right? The law provides EXACTLY the opposite:

(e) No Cause of Action Against a Provider Disclosing Information Under This Chapter.— No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.

In the present case, they had two choices, seek a warrant, or notify the subscriber in advance if they used any lesser means (court order, administrative subpoena, etc). They apparently tried tor the lesser means and got denied. You wonder why they just didn't go for the warrant, since the criteria are almost exactly the same.

This was a telemarketing fraud case apparently, because that's all that 18 U.S.C. 2703(c)(l), (d) deals with.

Re:SOoCS

[e9th]

This particular judge is an interesting guy. He is reported to have sentenced a woman to indefinite jury duty for answering the question, "name the three people you least admire," with "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians."