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."

Comments

Call or e-mail your Congresscritter.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Call or e-mail your Congresscritter.

[Joce640k]

Remember when Americans used to joke about communism and say "papers please" in funny voices...?

Re:Call or e-mail your Congresscritter.

[smooth wombat]

I've been saying for a while now (post-9/11) that the members of the former KGB must be laughing their heads off when they have their yearly get togethers.

All those years, those hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars we spent trying to bring down the "evil empire", espousing how free we were, how we didn't have to worry about the government listening in on our phone conversations, reading our mail, not having to worry about the police being able to walk into our houses at any time just to see if we're doing anything wrong.

The same people who harped on this (yeah Gingrich, I'm looking at you) are now the same people pushing every day to quash the last remnants of the freedoms as written in the Constitution. They want a national ID, just like the former Soviet Union. They want to track who you talk to, just like the former Soviet Union. Track where you go and who you associate with? Same as the former Soviet Union.

The 9/11 attacks were a wet dream come true for both the intelligence communities and more specifically, the right side of the Republican party. The attacks gave them the excuse they needed to strip away rights all in the name of protecting the nation (sound familiar?).

Yet, when one brings up these obvious similarities, you're un-American. Do you want to be killed by terrorists? If you have nothing to hide, why can't you just follow the (new) rules?

We've now come full circle and have become that which we despised. Congrats Newt, Hatch, and the rest of the lot of fascists. You've gone over to the dark side and have drug this country down with you.

Re:Call or e-mail your Congresscritter.

[jesseck]

The 9/11 attacks were a wet dream come true for both the intelligence communities and more specifically, the right side of the Republican party.

I agree with what you're saying... but all sides of the political spectrum, not just the Right, are doing this. Others are just more subtle about it and blame the "extreme Right".

Wouldn't that reduce the financial burden?

[michaelmalak]

It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.

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.

Re:Wouldn't that reduce the financial burden?

[ByOhTek]

In other words, the real reason they oppose this bill, is interferes with a revenue stream of American tax dollars from the 'unlimited cash cow' of the government.

Re:Wouldn't that reduce the financial burden?

[oh_my_080980980]

Hey douche bag, from the article:

"On the financial side, CTIA’s argument is laughable. Just to give one example—Sprint is a $7 billion company, and it charges law enforcement a $30 monthly flat fee to provide location data on an unlimited basis. And, keep in mind: in 2009, Wired reported that during a 13-month period, Sprint disclosed that data 8 million times. So how exactly is this new bill providing a "costly mandate?""

And that is a bad thing because???

[Q-Hack!]

"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.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[mortonda]

Not to mention a very real situation: 911 calls. My mother-in-law is a dispatcher, and she routinely has to call telcos to get information, such as when someone dials 911 from a mobile phone but is unable to talk... They can get emergency contact info, gps, triangulation, whatever... and they have a paper quest form that they can file after the fact. One of those time where bureaucracy falls behind the need to act fast.

Dispatchers need to be able to get information FAST.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[NeverSuchBefore]

Do you really want the cops to have to wake up a judge at 3am when your teenage daughter has gone missing after complaining about a stalker?

I desire checks and balances, so yes.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[vlm]

You don't get to say "Well, they barked a name and badge number at me and said it was urgent, so I had to tell them."

Having been tangentially involved in these situations, you DO get to say, I'll call back at your contact number.

As you can imagine we have written procedures for this, one of many steps is calling back the telephone book number of their office/station to get verification.

This actually works ridiculously well, because unlike on TV shows, most real world requests take at least a couple minutes work on the internet/telco side (if not much longer), so while tech #1 calls back doing the security check, tech #2 is doing the actual tech work to at least begin the process. Also it works well because we grill them for every detail we can get before hanging up... if the station says badge number 1337 doesn't exist and there is no such activity going on, then we simply file a report of all the details they were looking for (presumed stalking victim, etc).

I am told by cops this is pretty much the same way it works with the water/gas/electric/cellphone companies (example, in a barricade/hostage situation you shut off the gas so they can't blow the place up, etc). Same protocol at every telco/internet provider I've worked for. Its the multi industry standard comm protocol for cops-utilities cooperation. Its only unusual, or unknown, on TV or maybe in extremely rural service areas.

I've never worked for a telco or ISP or other service provider with only one phone line and only one employee in the network control center, so there probably are occasions where the officer doesn't get hung up on, but rest assured "someone" is calling the station to verify even if the officer on the line doesn't know he's being checked up on.

Usually everyone gets into the act and one guy calls the sup on duty assuming he's not on site and shoulder surfing, another guy does verification, another guy does the tech work, another guy talks to the actual officer, and another guy starts channel surfing for live TV if its a hostage situation or a chase simply because its cool. Its much more exciting than the daily fiber cut, or the weekly thunderstorm, or the monthly maintenance-gone-wrong disaster.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[jklovanc]

Here is the pertinent part of the law that covers this issue;

(3) Pursuant to a request by a government entity that asserts that
the government entity reasonably believes that an emergency
involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to the
owner or user requires the immediate access to location information
and there is insufficient time to obtain a warrant. The government
entity seeking the location information pursuant to this paragraph
shall file with the appropriate court a written statement setting
forth the facts giving rise to the emergency no later than 48 hours
after seeking disclosure.

In emergency situations the government entity does not need a warrant but must document the emergency in court papers within 48 hours.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[jklovanc]

Here is the pertinent part of the law that covers this issue;

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a government entity may
obtain location information in any of the following circumstances:
(1) In order to respond to the user's call for emergency services.

If someone calls a 911 operator they can request location information from the telco.

Re:And that is a bad thing because???

[afidel]

The provider is required to provide triangulation data for phones which do not have an onboard way of determining location for e911, and since federal law is supreme this California law would do exactly nothing to change that situation.

Working as Intended

[whisper_jeff]

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.

It would also increase the risk

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

When America sneezes, the Rest of the World...

[dryriver]

... 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".

Re:I have a dream

[Savage-Rabbit]

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.

Solution

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:Completely overblown

[afidel]

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.

Re:I have a dream

[roman_mir]

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.