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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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