Senator Seeks More Info On DOJ Location Tracking Practices

Gunkerty Jeb writes "Senator Al Franken (D-MN) is demanding answers to questions about the U.S. Department of Justice practice of gathering data from wireless providers in order to monitor individuals' movements using mobile phone location data. In a letter (PDF) to Attorney General Eric Holder, Franken said, 'I was further concerned to learn that in many cases, these agencies appear to be obtaining precise records of individuals' past and current movements from carriers without first obtaining a warrant for this information. I think that these actions may violate the spirit if not the letter of the Jones decision.'"

Comments

government

[wierd_w]

The only "decision" these government agencies respect is their own decision that they are more important than everyone else, and therefore completely justified in breaking laws.

Afterall, those laws are meant for those other people, not for them.

Too damn many people

[flaming error]

The government is huge and opaque and one congressman represents so many people, that most of us have near-zero access to say a thing about it. Sure we can write letters and they'll tally them up and pile them with the rest. Won't change much.

I'd really like to have my congress critters sit and discuss with me why they don't see this as the problem Franken and Paul do.

Because to me, the Constitution is crystal clear, and the feds are breaking the law.

Re:Too damn many people

[Fjandr]

One of many reasons I believe we should have far more Representatives. The total sum paid to all Reps should not increase, however.

Re:Too damn many people

[artor3]

Midterm congressional elections, nationwide, get around 80-85 million votes. There are 435 representatives. That's around 190k votes per representative. The results turn on a few percentage points. The 2010 midterms, by all accounts a blow-out, had only a 6.5% difference between the major parties. That's around six thousand voters per district, making the difference between a huge Democratic majority and a huge Republican one. And that's before you get into primaries, where turnout is even lower.

Representatives do pay attention to letters and phone calls. They hold town meetings where you can ask them questions. You can make a difference. Not a big one, by yourself, but if people in this country would stop being so defeatist, they could make a big difference in aggregate.

Re:Too damn many people

[EdIII]

Not a big one, by yourself, but if people in this country would stop being so defeatist, they could make a big difference in aggregate.

The problem are the choices. On one hand you have a big shaved ape that is going to take you in the corner and buttfuck you. On the other hand, you have a big shaved ape that is going to rape you in the face.

Geeee.... I wonder why so many people are just burned out and disillusioned about even making the choice?

With partisan politics being so damned bad, even the moderates that at least gave you a reach around are leaving.

Re:Too damn many people

[flaming error]

The only way people could make a big difference is if the people were different. We're not held back by defeatism as much as polarization. It's, about ignorance and dogma vs gullibility and simple-mindedness.

The masses are in a huge tug-of-war - sometimes one side manages to drag the knot to their side, but nobody really goes anywhere.

Re:Too damn many people

[Mitreya]

The results turn on a few percentage points. The 2010 midterms, by all accounts a blow-out, had only a 6.5% difference between the major parties.

You mean the results in a minority of districts turn on a few percentage points. While the rest are completely un-competitive.
Quoth wikipedia: "In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly. [4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win."

Al Franken

[ToadProphet]

Hi, Canada here...

When you're done with Al could you please send him our way? He seems to be one of the few decent politicians left.

Thanks.

Re:Al Franken

[artor3]

I don't think former presidents tend to run for office in foreign countries.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.... but seriously, every time I see Franken's name in the news, it's attached to something refreshingly principled. I could probably count the congressmen that's true for on one hand.

Re:Al Franken

[davester666]

Um, what has Al Franken been "president" of? Or are you hoping he might eventually run for President of the USA [of which he has no chance of being nominated unless he stops sticking it to big business].

Re:Al Franken

[DirePickle]

Franken co-sponsored PIPA.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/F000457

Re:Al Franken

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than that whole paying your taxes thing or being honest.(You know, the shit I pretty much expect out of every politician) But other than that totally principled.

To little to late?

[s.petry]

Al Franken is correct in questioning. This is exactly what a person that represents the "People" should be doing. Sadly, Rand Paul, Al Franken, Ron Paul, and a couple others are in such a minority that we won't hear much about this. Mega Media corps will make sure this does not reach Network News in any form to boot, so what ever Al uncovers will be quickly muted by what ever nonsense they feel will cover up the 5 minute news spot.

We really are at a point where the house needs to be cleaned completely. I think if it started to happen, we'd quickly have a police state. The Government has been gearing up for it at least. We can hope the Military prevents it from happening.

Re:To little to late?

[Ironchew]

We really are at a point where the house needs to be cleaned completely. I think if it started to happen, we'd quickly have a police state. The Government has been gearing up for it at least. We can hope the Military prevents it from happening.

The military has a vested interest in operating in a police state. Given the chance, they would usurp it, not prevent it.

Re:To little to late?

[s.petry]

Leadership perhaps, but even those leaders would be an extreme minority. The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I. I'm not saying it would not take a revolt at several levels mind you.

Re:To little to late?

[Ironchew]

Leadership perhaps, but even those leaders would be an extreme minority. The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I.

The military also has a vested interest in making sure those of lower rank (the majority) obey their superiors, otherwise there really wouldn't be much of a point in having a military. History has shown that things get more authoritarian when a nation is overthrown by its military.

Re:To little to late?

[flaming error]

"The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I"

Well, *like* you and I perhaps, but not *just* like us. Probably their mindset is closer to law enforcement officers than software geeks.

Sheriff deputies don't really have a problem evicting women and children on behalf of demonstrably corrupt banks. Cops have been known to go along with questionable tactics like racial profiling and beating captives to death and DUI checkpoints and planting evidence. If LEO doesn't put up much of a fuss, I'm sure, if they hear a semi-plausible story, many soldiers will follow anti-populist orders just fine.

Re:To little to late?

[silky1]

Leadership perhaps, but even those leaders would be an extreme minority. The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I. I'm not saying it would not take a revolt at several levels mind you.

I feel the same way. This is why we hear stories of DHS stocking up on weapons and ammo. They are full of lackeys and dropouts who will do as they are told. The military is very likely to stand up for the people in the case of a revolt.

Re:To little to late?

[Ironchew]

The military is very likely to stand up for the people in the case of a revolt.

As flaming error mentioned above, the excesses of law enforcement suggest otherwise, and those abuses pale in comparison to military abuse overseas. If I had to guess, an Arab settlement full of people doesn't look much different from a U.S. city full of people when you're staring at them from a helicopter gunship.

The military won't have a problem steamrolling us. A few "bad apples" may ignore orders, sure, but the military has protocol in place to deal with them.

Re:To little to late?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone doesn't believe you tell them to look up the trail of tears.

Re:To little to late?

[EdIII]

I don't think it is like that anymore, not by a long shot.

The military is a closed system strictly separated from any influence on civilians. It takes extraordinary circumstances for the National Guard to be mobilized (Katrina) and especially the main branches of the military on our home soil.

To say their mindset is like that of regular law enforcement is incorrect. People don't join the military to have control over civilians, unlike many other countries, say.... like Burma or North Korea.

I might feel the way you do if I routinely see a military officer in uniform, in public, armed and giving orders to civilians. Only time in my life I have ever seen that was in airport shortly after 9/11.

Normally, you would think the guy is a fucking nut, not even in the military, and call the police.

Re:To little to late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Franken was a huge SOPA supporter. He only cares about himself.

Re:To little to late?

[flaming error]

This thread is response to speculation that the military would step in and protect us from more blatantly oppressive feds.

Who knows what the future holds and what shit will or won't hit the fan. But if worse oppression happens, I wouldn't count on the military to rescue us from our government - soldiers could only give us a regime-change/coup. Not much point in counting on one department of the Executive Branch to save us from another.

Revolution (hopefully bloodless) is what we'd need, and that's really a civilian affair - of, by, and for The People. No passing the buck.

When did this change?

[TWX]

When did it change to where the government could get records from a private company about a private individual without a court-issued Warrant? Didn't the whole "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." part of the fourth amendment cover private data as effects, or as an electronic version of papers?

If law enforcement feels they need data on a person's whereabouts, and if there's a log of these whereabouts, they should fairly easily be able to make an argument to a judge that they need this information. If they can't find a judge that will grant them this data, then the checks and balances portion of the three-part government worked. It's not like the data is going anywhere if they don't get to it NOW...

Re:When did this change?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did it change to where the government could get records from a private company about a private individual without a court-issued Warrant?

9/11//2001. Blowing a couple buildings up provided the exploit needed to effectively root the constitution. And now, we're pwned.

Re:When did this change?

[Fjandr]

Government found a route around the 4th a long time ago. It applies to forcibly obtaining information from someone. What the government does now is ask for the information from a 3rd party. Many companies make it their business to give the government whatever it wants, because it greases the wheels of government when they want something done that's in their interest.

Re:When did this change?

[KhabaLox]

When did it change to where the government could get records from a private company about a private individual without a court-issued Warrant?

You don't own the data Google has on you (including your emails, etc.) You don't own your Tweets. That's why that protester couldn't challenge the subpoena the DA served on Twitter. If Google wants to fight to protect their data they have about you, they can (maybe). But you can't, and it's not a violation of your rights for Google to turn over that data, or for the government to go after it without a warrant (it might be a violation of Google's rights).

Re:When did this change?

[MacDork]

You don't own your Tweets.

In the US, you own copyright on any written work you create, automatically. That would include your tweets.

Re:When did this change?

[Johann Lau]

That doesn't prohibit you from handing a lot of rights regarding them to someone else. Kinda like when you sign up for Twitter and accept the agreement... not that I know what that agreement entails exactly, but I kinda assume it has lots of fine print which deals with such things.

an excellent reason to leave your phone off

[0111 1110]

This is why I always leave my cell phone turned off unless I have to make a call. In addition to leaving the phone off I wonder if I also have to remove the battery and SIM card and then wrap the phone in aluminum foil.

Re:an excellent reason to leave your phone off

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no huge secret that law enforcement routinely gets cell tower data from the carriers after a major crime, like a murder, missing person or armed robbery has taken place, and they can even specify "I need every person within 200 feet of the corner of Main and 1st street between 9:00 and 10:00 PM on X date. They instantly know every subscriber's identity who was connected to a tower in the vicinity of a crime at a given time and it makes it easy to find leads or even witnesses.
If you have an Onstar-equipped vehicle, your whereabouts are also known in the exact same fashion. GM recently announced that they collect location data whether you subscribe or not, and you can submit an opt-out request. Short of cutting wires, if it's on, it's connecting to towers and exposing your identity.

Balls

[shoehornjob]

Al Franken must have a huge pair as he seems to be one of the few people in Washington who will question authority. I wish he was my senator because I'd vote for him.