Slashdot Mirror
Telcos Oppose Bill To Respect 4th Amendment
Fluffeh writes "CTIA (The mobile operators' industry association) is opposing a California law proposing that a court order be required prior to disclosing personal information. The law seems to be in opposition to the federal government's attempts to wash away the last requirements to get at any information about citizens, but CTIA claims (PDF) '... the wireless industry opposes SB 1434 as it could create greater confusion for wireless providers when responding to legitimate law enforcement requests.' The EFF and the ACLU have been arguing strongly for the bill which is to be voted on shortly."
A charming quote from CTIA: "For example, the definition of 'location information' is so sweeping that it could implicate information generally considered basic subscriber information under federal law. Since the implications of this definition are unclear, wireless providers will have difficulty figuring out how to respond to requests for such information. It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests."
It would be so uplifting to see a massive show of support for this from the populace. Unfortunately, it will probably die a quiet death at the hands of lobbyists, and most people will probably ever even see its obituary.
Up, up, to the sky !!
Get well soon !!
Wouldn't that reduce the labor/financial burden on the telcos?
The telcos must be acting at the request of politicians, in exchange for good treatment by the politicians on behalf of the telcos on other unrelated matters.
You should know better, slashdot. The headline is an opinion, not a factual representation of the news article.
It's funny how you and readers here rip up fox news and other media such shenanigans, but you engage in yellow journalism yourselves.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests."
Exactly how it should be. The entire point of requiring a warrant, is to provide checks and ballances to the system.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Get rid of OS Guard, now, or else!
God says...
arent_you_clever genius you_should_be_so_lucky Yawn test_pilot
I'll_be_back Terry talk_to_my_lawyer nevada what's_up
I'm_the_boss ahh wishful_thinking Burp fake I_don't_care
what_a_mess try_again listen_buddy I_hate_when_that_happens
happy homo over_the_top economy let_me_count_the_ways
exports trippy how_about_that jealousy mocking California
quit_it I_have_an_idea epic_fail after_a_break I'm_done
Maybe the telcos should be lobbying the feds then to respect the 4th amendment and have one national standard to adhere to because it's stupid to think individual states won't pass laws like this and they'll end up with a hodgepodge of laws with conflicting requirements all over the country.
People want the 4th amendment respected. It'd be nice to have telcos on our side for once.
This could be the craziest comment I have ever read. They essentially oppose the law because it would require that they obey the Constitution of the United States. That just goes to show how scary of a state that the US is in right now when something like this can be an issue.
"confusion for wireless providers when responding to legitimate law enforcement requests"
isn't that kind of the whole point? isn't the issuance of a warrant the very litmus test of legitimacy?
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
Um, allow me to introduce you to an internet meme that covers this adequately: "It's working as intended." Warrants exist for a reason. This sort of situation - responding to requests from law enforcement - are exactly that situation. Working as intended. Deal with it.
Right now, and for a long time now, law enforcement agencies have had special privileges among telecoms, more than the law itself requires. In exchange, telecom companies get to have a nice, easy-going relationship with the government, and everyone except the citizens of this country wins.
Requiring telecoms to only provide assistance when presented with a court order puts that friendly relationship at risk. It also leaves telecoms vulnerable to lawsuits, should they continue to play by the old rules of the game.
Palm trees and 8
... tends to catch a cold as well. This isn't just true for Economics, where the phrase originated. If America borks up the "legal protections" that protect the "right to communication privacy", the rest of the world - developing or developed - is also bound to bork up its own "communications privacy" laws. So to America: Please don't set a super-fucked-up example in this matter, that the rest of the world then tries to follow or emulate (because if America does it, you know, its OK to do the same, too...). Please keep communications data private, please keep strong legal "privacy protections" in place, or else we who are outside America will also loose our "communication privacy", due in no small part to the bad example America sets in this matter. If you proclaim yourself the "Leader of the Free World", there is a certain responsibility that comes with that - to lead by "good example", not "bad example".
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Seems like a good idea, except when the safety of a minor or incompetent adult is involved.
Still, I'd rather have all law enforcement agencies - FBI, police, ATF, ... and all the spy agencies have to get a warrant even to be told where I live. They should need a warrant to look at tax records, property records, and thing not directly related to their jobs.
The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. We need it swung too far in the other direction for the next 10 years.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
Indeed. That's a good thing, and it's what we want.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Federal law affects only federal law enforcement except where there is contradicting jurisdiction. Even in overlapping jurisdiction, the supremacy clause doesn't apply. For example, federal drug laws do not override state drug laws within a state's borders because the constitution gives virtually no jurisdiction to the federal government over what happens within a state's boundaries except matters of civil rights protection, coinage of currency and a few other domestic things. The federal government is free to arrest Californians for selling drugs across the border, but California is free to legalize the sale of drugs within its borders and even to prosecute federal agents who arrest people complying with California law in California's borders.
Big business, like big labor, hates state sovereignty. It makes the regulatory environment "messy." This is why contra what most liberals think, states rights are not a racist anachronism, but anti-venom for big business' reach and power.
The Constitution is there to limit the government.
This bill has 2 chief components, a warrant requirement which is aimed at California governments and a transparency requirement related to the 1st component. It''s a shame that it requires a law to get the telcos to do the right thing.
"Hey businesses, want to know why people despise you? This is why?"
... are you an American, a US citizen respectful of the Founders of this Country? If not, get out!
Apart from the invasion into your private life by government and loss of personal freedoms I mean.
The real problem is that with your information becoming so easily available, somewhere along the long line of entities that have access to it, there will be breaches and compromised security.
We've often seen that no company or organisation can keep its data from being stolen, why do legislators think that enabling so many to put their hands on your info is a good thing?
They should be legislating so that NO ONE can get your data... But I guess they'd only do that if their responsibility was implementing the mandates their constituents gave them.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
If this law is contrary to the bill of rights 4th amendment, how is it legal?
They're using their grammar skills there.
I'd think it would be easy enough for cell contracts to have opt-in pre-authorization signatures for releasing 911 call information, rather than scrapping the idea that warrants are needed for all non-911 requests.
Personally I don't understand why the telcos should care whether a warrant is required or not. That's up to the legal system to determine on behalf of the PEOPLE, not for corporations to decide. The law is about protecting PEOPLE, not what's "easiest" for corporations.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Not to mention when standard caller ID doesn't work and you can't simply reprogram those magical devices to transmit additional information when placing a call to 911 - we all know the software on phones is so incredibly old that all the programmers that know how to work it are long dead - and they really hated documentation.
The Carriers have already reprogrammed the phones to transmit additional information (e911). The problem is that our budget strapped cities have not paid to upgrade their 911 centers to receive that information.
A couple years ago we had a bill up in New Hampshire to expand the State's "administrative subpoena" power from just telephone records to ISP records. (The law currently allows the Attorney General's Office, without a warrant, to subpoena records of when calls were made, who made them, and to whom. This bill would have allowed IP records to be added to that list.)
At the hearing, Comcast's lobbyist was the main speaker in favor of this bill.
Liberty in your lifetime
I like Obama's solution for this. It is time to impose sanctions against the United States.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/23/1453201/new-sanctions-to-target-syrian-and-iranian-tech-capacity
"This morning, President Obama is set to unveil a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse. Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access) , the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."
And in case the irony wasn't already obvious, he actually is sanctioning the Syrian telephone companies themselves:
Those include the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate, the Syriatel phone company and Ali Mamluk, the director of Syria’s general intelligence services.
I would love to hear him speak out on this issue! Of course, he already granted US telecom companies immunity, so this law would have no effect on them anyway.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
That's the point. It's not that hard to get a warrant. The idea is that another branch of government should be reviewing police actions. Law enforcement should not be getting a free hand to obtain anything they want. The intent of the 4th amendment was that citizens should be allowed to conduct their lives without fear of government intrusion except when that intrusion was justified, reviewed by other branches of the government, and the action were open to the view of citizens. Too bad if that's an inconvenience for law enforcement and the phone company. I'm sorry if my rights are a bit of an inconvenience.
CTIA says it is opposed to SB 1434 because it may "create confusion for wireless providers and hamper their response to legitimate law enforcement investigations."
If it is a legitimate investigation then there already is a warrant involved. The telco's are just upset about possibly losing the $30/month fee they charge law enforcement for unlimited information access.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests
All I can say is: Duhh! Halleluiah!
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests."
And what, exactly, would be so terrible about requiring the police to obey the US Constitution (for a change)?
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests"
That's most certainly the point.
I'm not opposed to legitimate law enforcement. I'm opposed to the current bullshit hodgepodge of privacy breaches that occur by both the outsourcement of customer service to foreign countries that don't have privacy laws, and the Patriot Act that tells foreign countries that we're going to violate their privacy so don't hire American companies to handle their data.
There won't be confusion. The first time the federal government seeks this information, they will go to court to get the California bill overtuned. The judge will almost surely give an injunction to prevent the California bill from being inforced while the case continues. It will reach the Supreme Court who will find for the Federal Government without thinking ("What's the 4th Amendment?")
Is they are not legitimate until the court provides an order. Because someone is wearing a $100 uniform with a $5 badge doesn't make things legitimate without going through normal process.
That is all.
There fixed it for you. Congresscritters are at the federal level. Therefore it would seem that Legicritter would be the matching honorific at the state legislature level. This a California state bill. Although asking for it in other states seems to be a good idea.
All I ever hear is 'the government' is taking personal freedoms away and eroding the constitution. The government is just a tool. In a (sort of) democracy, it can be controlled by anybody. Right now it's being mainly controlled by corporations. If change is desired; campaign finance reform. Why do people find this such a difficult concept? Stop bashing "the government" and focus your gaze on the people paying the people who run it. This is going to get even worse, thanks to PACs and super PACs.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
It's shameful that they don't see this as a good thing. It's even more shameful that the status quo is to not require warrants in the first place.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
We're talking government limitation here. When a law is passed that makes X illegal or allows companies to sue individuals over Y, we are never, ever OK with over-broad generic terms describing actions that can be construed as illegal. This describes actions deemed illegal to be performed by citizens. We're talking about the reverse in this case, describing limitations to government; a law that is overbroad in specifying what information the government requires a warrant to get from telcos. This is a good thing. I would much rather it be a pain in the ass / more difficult for my government to invade the privacy of its citizens. This "too general" argument only works in the opposite direction, not when it's describing limitations to the government.
As to the arguments against that, citing it would be difficult for them to know what they can and can't give to the government, have the government tell them then make it public record what information was given, so if the government lies or gets it wrong, we can use this in an actionable way. I see no downside to this.
But the third amendment is still safe, right? I hate unreasonable searches, but even more than that I hate being forced to quarter soldiers in my home.
"It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests". Seems like that fits in with the letter and spirit of the law and the constitution as well.
That's one of the huge reasons why Democracy leads to destruction of freedoms and many people here don't understand it and argue against that point. Democracy is a gateway towards tyranny.
Tyranny comes out of ignorance, greed and stupidity or short-sightedness of general public combined with democracy. It's when people can VOTE against freedoms in order to get some sort of a short term fix that tyranny is born and freedoms are destroyed.
Presumably that is why you keep trolling on about Ron Paul. Of course we know well that you very clearly do not actually support him, you just run around spouting off his most ridiculous material to show how detached from reality the hordes of slashdot paullowers are. While ron paul is off his rocker on the majority of what he talks about, he does not actually speak directly of the hatred for democracy that you try to express in his name.
In other words, ron paul is a nutjob. A nutjob who creates plenty of material on his own that you don't need to fabricate shit for him. It will be some time before everyone figures out your game, but you can extend it by being less obvious.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I have looked at the info available from geo fencing providers I start to wonder how more the info the government thinks they need. Maybe an insturmented toilet networked straight to the NSA. Its all really nothing new the communication system has been bugged and tracked since the telegraph. If you want real privacy you have to earn it by researching and applying the correct technology such as one time pads, strong public key encryption, proxies, TOR, or maybe carrier pigeons :)
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
Yes please? Where do I sign?
Bow before me, for I am root.