Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Telcos Oppose Bill To Respect 4th Amendment

Posted by Unknown on from the but-judge-due-process-is-too-hard dept.

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."

3 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. And that is a bad thing because??? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:And that is a bad thing because??? by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Working as Intended by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.