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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
Really? The constitution requires that they ask for a warrant before asking anybody anything? Because that's really what the problem is here. The telcos don't want have a warrant required to give out your "location information" which as the law as written could be anything as vague as your billing address. The 4th amendment is about search and seizure of your personal effects. I'm not sure if you billing address with your phone company falls under the category of personal papers, but it's also the property of the telcos. Here's the problem. If the cops go to ask your friends (or foes) where to find you, and they willingly give up the information, there's nothing you can do about it. They don't have to have a warrant to ask other people for information about you. You can ask for a warrant before they search your premises, and so can your friends, but if they are invited in, they don't need a warrant.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Voters do want the 4th amendment respected. It's just that they are so zealous about outlawing abortion and gay marriage that they'd cut off their nose to spite their face.
You are assuming most voters even know what the 4th amendment says.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
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.
You are ignoring the interstate commerce clause which the supreme court has repeatedly ruled allows the fed to enforce any law that might potentially affect interstate commerce, even illicit commerce. California can do whatever they want, but a federal agent has the authority under federal law to arrest anyone for possession of any schedule one drug and interfering with a federal officer will get you arrested by the FBI. I don't happen to like the overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause, I think it's some of the supreme courts weakest jurisprudence, but it's currently the law of the land.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
You can't handle the truth.