Slashdot Mirror
Many Police Departments Engage in Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking
alphadogg writes with a distressing bit of analysis of the training materials acquired by the ACLU last week. From the article: "Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. track mobile phones as part of investigations, but only a minority ask for court-ordered warrants, according to a report released Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union. More than 90 law enforcement agencies said they track mobile phones during investigations, but only six reported receiving court-approved warrants after demonstrating that there's probable cause of a crime, according to an ACLU report based on public information requests filed by the group last year."
The ACLU has a handy page allowing you to see if your local PD engages in such practices.
I'm curious to know what exactly is being tracked. The summary makes you think that everything is being tracked, like conversations and text messages, but it's actually just location that's being tracked. Companies already track such data for service quality--for example, the iPhone tracks cell phone towers to determine strongest signal areas, which ultimately means it ends up with a history of phone locations. Most smartphones do this. That said, for the government to be able to track private property without permission for purposes of investigation is different, and there should be protection against such invasive surveillance. Unfortunately, I don't think much progress will be made in that regard as long as Obama is in office--he's demonstrated that he's more than happy to embrace warrantless surveillance of all kinds.
It says in many instances the police obtained an administrative subpoena. While it's less of a standard, there is at least some standard. While it's correct to say "police obtain tracking data without a warrant," it would be more correct to say "police obtain tracking data with subpoenas and court orders instead of warrant." The difference being is a cop cannot unilaterally obtain information.
From the report:
Each provider has a different system for authorizing police use of location information and we comply with whatever that cell phone provider requests.
How does law enforcement make a request to track a cell phone? Is it a phone call? A web-based system? If cell companies are giving out this information without warrants, hopefully they have some security to prevent someone from impersonating a police officer and tracking someone.
A limitation of the US Constitution is that it requires the government to get warrants for things, but it does not force civilians to ask for those warrants. So if companies or individuals voluntarily choose to provide this information then there is no need to obtain a warrant. People must make a stand if they really care. But what incentive do corporations have to do this?
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone?
Because I can tail a guy, or "shadow" him walking down the street. Anyone can do those activities in public. Not anyone can eavesdrop on a cell phone which is being used in someone's home, car, etc. Warrants are when the police want to do something an ordinary citizen cannot.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
I think they are unreasonable; absent reasonable articulable suspicion that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime, then there is no legal justification for any kind of tracking whatsoever.
Why people seem to think -- or have fallen for -- the absurdity that the constitution outlines the only rights we have and not as a curb on governmental powers is beyond me.
All together now -- ABSENT REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. It matters not that computers are fast enough to scan a billion license plates per hour, or that certain activities do not carry an expectation of privacy. That's the sugary lie that is used to get us to swallow the ultimate poison of the police state.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
When the iPhone "Find My Friends" app came out last year, I was rather surprised by how many people were opposed to it and refused to share information. "I don't want other people to know where I am all the time" was the most common complaint.
My response at the time was, "do you really think the police/federal government/big telecoms can't already track you?"
If you're going somewhere you don't want other people to know about, leave your phone at home.
Let me guess, you also say that government should remove all regulations for business so they can thrive and hire everyone who wants a job? Do you want the government so small that you could drown it in a bath tub? I'm sure that when your rights are violated under the Constitution by the police, you'll say "it's okay, they're just trying to find the bad guys. I still have my due process in the courts. LOL"
My teenage daughter suffers from a severe emotional disorder and when in a bad emotional state is often a danger to herself and others, so when she beat up my wife, locked her in the basement, stole the car and ran away, I asked the local PD to track her phone. They said they could only do it with a court order and that would take 24 hours -- way too long. Even when I pointed out that the phone was actually mine -- I bought it and I pay the bill -- they still said they couldn't.
In general, I heartily aprove of requiring court approval for such things, but it seems like in a case where it might literally be the difference between life and death for a young woman with a record of suicide attempts and who has committed serious crimes (assault, unlawful imprisonment, grand theft auto, driving without a license) and where the owner of the phone not only approved but requested that it be tracked, they should do it. I also asked the wireless carrier (Verizon) and they said they would only do it if the police requested.
(The outcome of the story was that I had a pretty good guess about where she was headed and I found her within a few hours, about 60 miles from home. The police then caught her and took her to the ER for suicide watch and psychiatric evaluation. I didn't find where she ditched the car until a couple of days later. It required about $2K in repairs. I wish my daughter could be "repaired" so cheaply and effectively.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I think they are unreasonable; absent reasonable articulable suspicion that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime, then there is no legal justification for any kind of tracking whatsoever.
Well, the obvious solution is to make more things illegal.
A citizen can "tail" any other citizen driving around in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street. Therefore, no extra authority is needed for a police officer to do the same.
Can a citizen (say, me) engage in cell phone tracking of another citizen (say, you)? If so, please tell me how. If not, explain why we should grant cops this extra power without court oversight?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So I clicked the source link which then had a US map with FOI requests sent to different states. I clicky Mssouri (I live there) and there is a request from Green Co.. not where I live.. but in the ball park.. then I click the response from the Sherrif's legal counsel which said..for each question..around 10 or so.. we dont keep those records and have no way to know or search for this info.
At the end they said.. if you have a certain time frame or case you'd like us to look into.. send us a request or give us a call.
Appears that as long as you dont keep track of it.. theres nothing to report on a FOI request... Sounds about right lately.
Perhaps we should delete the word "unreasonable" from the 4th amendment, in order to remove the police's ability to justify everything (including patdowns in airports, train terminals, and other random VIPR locations).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Because I can tail a guy, or "shadow" him walking down the street. Anyone can do those activities in public. Not anyone can eavesdrop on a cell phone which is being used in someone's home, car, etc. Warrants are when the police want to do something an ordinary citizen cannot.
Not exactly; the reason it's illegal is not because "ordinary citizens cannot" track cell phones (especially considering that with deep enough pockets, an 'ordinary citizen' very much can track any cell phone), but rather because a cell phone, being a privately owned, personal communication device, falls under the category of "personal effects" and possibly "papers" (as both are used for communication) and thus is subject to protection under the 4th Amendment.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In other words, you were vague enough in your request that we can legally tell you to fuck off, so... fuck off.
Continued:
Really? "no mechanism" to search a database? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of building a damn database in the first place?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
I looked at the response for Cary, NC? Sweet little dodge in there...
(Emphasis in bold is mine)
Very nice. You can purchase the records, or you can come and view them in person. Just for S&G, I tried to follow that URL, but it doesn't seem to work.
I will note that some people really are willing to show up at the county court house, pay the fee, and sit there for a few hours while the clerk makes the requested copies. Likewise, said folks usually have the document scanner warmed up and waiting at the local Kinko's, ready to load those copyrighted records into easily distributed .pdf format, and DGAF about copyright claims.
[End Of Line]
Actually, it is probably not legal to snoop on those cellular frequencies (even if you are not actually decoding the audio data), per section 302(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (or, more formally, title 47 USC, chapter 5, subchapter III, Part I, section 302(d)).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, the police, and the government in general, must have more checks in place than the average citizen -- because the police and the government have so much more power than the average citizen.
The founders had it right, we citizens must have powerful checks against government/police abuse or we will lose all our freedoms.
Why don't you want the police installing security cameras in every room of your house? What are you hiding?
It's good to see this troll of a non-story link-bait only has 51 comments.
I mean, at some point, the turd has stagnated itself to the point it's indistinguishable from the ground it lies on.
(it's okay to mod insightful)
The police should be allowed to have a few things like this that could allow them to be proactive and stop something before it happens.
Sure, if they acknowledge and are legally charged with a duty to prevent crime, and can be held legally responsible when they fail to do so, instead of the current situation where Warren v. D.C. absolved them of pretty much any responsibility to do anything. Good luck getting that to happen.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The biggest threat to life and liberty is the State. Israel has killed more civilians than Hamas, the US has killed more civilians than Al-Quaeda.
The US constitution, despite its age, can be a strong limit on state power. But all three branches of government have to have principled people in them who are willing to enforce the constitution, not look the other way like they did during the internment of Japanese-origin Americans or the "rendition" to torture of Canadians and Americans of Arab origin.
Epitaph: At last! Root access!
As in 4th amendment of the Constitution? I thought that was ripped to shreds over the past 11 years...
Seriously though, if more US citizens really understood the Constitution and how much we've lost in the last 11 years since 9/11, there would be more outcry. Far too many people are willing to give up their rights granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the name of "security" or "terrorism". Both are false reasons to lay down your rights and surrender all control to the government, in fact you should stand up even more for your rights. This does not preclude a strong government, proper checks and balances have to be in place. It's the checks and balances that have largely been ripped out in the name of security.
A) Because a warrant has always been needed to follow someone on private property. Unless your cell phone knows to stop sending location data to the cops as soon as you walk out of public view then it's a new power that the cops didn't have before, to observe your actions when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
B) Because the effort required to physically follow someone acts as a balance; the labor costs associated with manually tracking a person discourage the police from engaging in widespread or long-term tracking. It could still be done if the police thought it was worth the resources, but it's not something they could do routinely or for large groups of people. However, using cell-phone location data, the police could easily track everyone in town, 24/7, indefinitely, with very little effort or cost, and can obtain such tracking data retroactively -- they don't even need to start tracking you, they can search your location history after the fact. Both those changes represent a significant increase in police power with respect to physically tailing someone.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
My biggest problem with this oft-cited logic is that:
a) It takes considerable effort to "tail a guy". You really want to know what "he's" up to. vs the electronic version that is virtually "free".
b) You can't retrospectively "tail a guy" in real life.
c) The real life situation has boundaries. You can't follow them in private settings, not so the electronic version.
d) The "target" of the surveillance has the opportunity to observe the "observation". Remember, they are innocent till proven guilty in most parts of the world. I'm really concerned that that is / has changing.
Just because there are *some* similarities between two situations, doesn't make them the same.
Ever stop to think
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
I was referring to that case where a police officer follows someone out in the open, on public streets. In that case, the cops have as much freedom of movement as anyone else does. If they were to trespass on private property, or take any other action that would be illegal for a normal civilian to take (wiretaps, access to any non-public corporate data, tampering with someone vehicle to attach a tracking device, etc.) then yes, they should have to get a warrant.
I think you and I don't have much in the way of a disagreement. I'm saying, however, that the police are not as free in this manner as another citizen would be. Due to the special powers granted to them on behalf of the people of the United States, they have to abide by certain rules that the rest of the population does not.
Accordingly, I do not believe that police are allowed to do so. That they do, irrespective of the constitutionality of the behavior, is irrelevant to my point.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
"They are there in their room" -- write it down a 100 times until it sticks. Nuff said.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.