Slashdot Mirror


Cops' Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Now Better Than GPS

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss a proposed bill to limit location tracking of electronic devices without a warrant — what it's calling the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, or the GPS Act. Ahead of that hearing, University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze submitted written testimony (PDF) telling Congress that phone carriers, as well as the law enforcement agencies with which they share data, can now use phones' proximity to cell towers and other sources of cellular data to track their location as precisely or even more precisely than they can with global positioning satellites. Thanks to the growing density of cell towers and the proliferation of devices like picocells and femtocells that transmit cell signals indoors, even GPS-less phones can be tracked with a high degree of precision and can offer data that GPS can't, like the location of someone inside a building or what floor they're on. With the GPS Act, Congress is considering expanding the ban on warrantless tracking of cars with GPS devices that the Supreme Court decided on in January. Blaze's testimony suggests they need to include non-GPS tracking of cell phones in that ban, a measure law enforcement agencies are strongly resisting."

147 comments

  1. Privacy or surveillance... by uniquename72 · · Score: 2

    ...You can't have both.

    1. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by mblase · · Score: 1

      ...You can't have both.

      In other shocking revelations, squares are not round.

    2. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. Just not of the same data points.

    3. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno, have you met many slashdotters? I'd say that most of them are square and quite round.

    4. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      ...You can't have both.

      But who here WANTS surveillance? :P

    5. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Everyone want surveillance. The questions are how much and when.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loss of privacy is just one symptom of a loss of freedom.

      If you or I start up a new carrier tomorrow, we should have the freedom to decide what information we will retain, and who we will give it too. When the government requires that all carriers retain location data, and that they turn it over whenever requested, then the carrier's freedom has been taken away.

      If this goes to court, it should be overturned. I say that "it should be" instead of "it will be", because over the last 40-50 years, the constitution has become whittled away so much that it hardly even matters any more.

      tl;dr: Government should invent their own technology for spying on us, instead of re-appropriating our stuff.

    7. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With respect, bullshit

      What you meant was, "Privacy or Mass Surveillance.... You can't have both".

      Privacy in the long run will always benefit the People more than governments use of mass surveillance to allegedly provide the People with more security. The common mistake is treating the government like a regular person and evaluating their possession of information as having the same possible consequences which completely ignores the massive differences in power between both actors.

      Simple surveillance, under Due Process, is not affected by creating laws to protect Privacy, or laws that ban the use of mass surveillance on people.

      Law enforcement and governments will always have enough resources and technology to intercept communications and watch a single person. It is the traditional stake out, using listening devices, gathering information the old fashioned way, etc. They might not be able to do this to millions of people at one time, but that is the point. It is dangerous to allow them to do that.

      Convince me that more than 10% of the population is currently engaged in conspiracies to commit heinous and violent acts against other citizens (forget that bullshit about the War on Drugs) and it *might* be a point for discussion.

      The greatest danger we face is the government . That's not paranoia either, but simple observation of the facts and history.

    8. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and who the subject is...

    9. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by uniquename72 · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I accidentally made reference to TFS, forgetting that many on /. lack the skill to READ before commenting. I'll clarify for the shortbus crowd:

      The name of the Act is Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act. It does nothing to protect privacy.

      Your illogical, meandering rant aside, as long as you are under surveillance, you're are not experiencing privacy. The act of surveillance necessitates the removal of privacy.

      Hopefully that's less confusing.

      The greatest danger we face is the government

      Thanks for your agreement.

    10. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I accidentally made reference to TFS, forgetting that many on /. lack the skill to READ before commenting. I'll clarify for the shortbus crowd:

      The name of the Act is Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act. It does nothing to protect privacy.

      It seems you are riding the shortbus. All you did was parrot two words in the summary and say that only one can exist at one time, which is untrue. Aside from your baseless and unwarranted character attacks....

      Your illogical, meandering rant aside, as long as you are under surveillance, you're are not experiencing privacy. The act of surveillance necessitates the removal of privacy.

      No. My rant is quite logical and far from random or aimless, which is implied by meandering. Your disregard for the context of TFS (which I did read) is misleading. It most certainly is talking about privacy of citizens as a whole and surveillance as it relates to single individuals.

      You do a disservice to the People by implying that you can't have privacy and surveillance at the same time. Surveillance is oft mistaken for security, so what you are really saying is that you cannot have Privacy and Security at the same time.

      That is a dangerous argument to make that only enables people to take away more from the People in the name of providing greater security.

      We as a people can protect Privacy and still have more than adequate tools available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance where appropriate and authorized by due process on single individuals at one time .

      Making statements like that will only lead the sheeple, as a consequence of their fear, further into an environment in which law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and foreign or unauthorized actors can access vast troves of information in fishing expeditions, plenty of which can be quite detrimental to the People.

      Yes, you can have Privacy and Surveillance at the same time.

    11. Re:Privacy or surveillance... by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      You mean there are no ways to at least try find middle grounds in particular situations? Gee.

  2. Good work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From now on, I'll only make calls from stolen cell phones. Way to go gov!

  3. Re:Not always more accurate by mblase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The cell tower nearest my home is about 2 miles by crow, but 15 miles by car, on the other side of the reservoir. GPS is much more accurate.

    Don't they use your distance from multiple cell towers to triangulate your position?

  4. This just isn't right... in any way by dryriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We, the consumers, pay good money for the hardware in a smartphone, including the GPS geolocation capabilities. Then some government goons come along and say "Ha ha! We'll track your location using the GPS electronics in your phone!" ------- Same with Facebook. We, the users, make Facebook a great, big site with our data and our invested time. Then the government goons come along and say "Ha Ha! We'll find out everything we want about you by poaching your Facebook data!" ------ This particular decade has very much started on the wrong foot, with regards to personal privacy and somesuch. -------- How much worse can this all get? Will we be required by law to give up ALL PRIVATE DATA because the government likes to have it? -------- These laws and personal data tracking policies are just wrong.... wrong, wrong, wrong....

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you're not a criminal, or an "unwanted race" under some future tyranny state, what does it matter that the government tracks your phone? Besides you can disappear quite easily by just pulling the battery.

      The facebook issue is more seriously, but when you publish things publicly, whether it's the new facebook or the old newspaper, the government can and will collect that data. Solution: Keep quiet.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well instead of bitching here on Slashdot, try writing (pen and paper, not email) your representative in congress and insisting they pass the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, with no watered down provisions.

      Is it really so hard to get a warrant? If you can't convince a judge, why should a email to your cell provider suffice?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

    4. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no privacy. That's the price of modern convenience. Some of us warned folks 10+ years ago this day was coming. Most largely ignored it because of "Ooh, shiny" or "convenience".

      Genie's out of the bottle. Good luck getting it back in.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    5. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Fred and Bob meet at a restaurant, who "owns" the factoid that "Fred and Bob ate at X restaurant at Y time". That data has monetizable value, but who has the rights to sell it? Does Fred? Does Bob? Do they both have joint and several rights? Does the restaurant get to sell it?

      The same goes with Facebook. What you post on the site is no longer exclusively "your private data". Any middle-schooler can (or should) realize that Facebook makes money by selling that data, and that you should expect them to sell your data.

    6. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to point this out, but WE are the government. I really despise people who talk about government like its this disconnected entity. We THE PEOPLE, make up the government, it is your FELLOW MAN who seeks to enslave you, not some faceless 'government'.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by geekoid · · Score: 0

      eww. wow, you must be some kind of super genius, having 'warned' us of the no existent ant problem.

      Twit.

      Nice out of context quote, btw.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      How much worse can this all get?

      Much, much worse. Of course, it's very simple to put and end to. Just stop patronizing the worst offenders... but nobody wants to do that.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    9. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides you can disappear quite easily by just pulling the battery.

      But I have an iPhone you insensitive clod!

    10. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 1

      We The People Have not made up this country since FDR.

      I don't know what Fellow Man your talking about...but they sure aint my fellows.

      If they are so much your fellow man, go run for president and fix things.....Good luck with that.

      --
      -Noc
    11. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by ifwm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're not a criminal

      Is there any phrase more overused and insulting, when brought up in a discussion about rights? Maybe "think of the children"?

    12. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Riddle me this then: How is it that restrictions on fine print of financial agreements between lenders and average borrowers, which garner the support of 90% of Americans in polls, aren't actually in place? How is it that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed by roughly 65% of Americans for years, are still going on? How is it that even though people across the political spectrum from Tea Partiers to Occupiers are demanding that big banks be investigated for what appears to be fraud fraud worth trillions of dollars, no such investigation is taking place?

      I can guess at who's demands the government is actually satisfying, but it's definitely not the general public's.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq's already over bud.

    14. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      Its funny how some people don't mind if a big corporation like Google tracks you, or even sells your information (maybe like Facebook) but, if the GOVERNMENT does it, then its time to cry foul.

    15. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This just the same old line, "If you are not guilty, then you have nothing to hide."

    16. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Antimatter3009 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because we aren't a direct democracy. Majority opinion doesn't always become law, and it definitely doesn't happen immediately. That's by design. But it still lies with the people to select the government. If our government representatives aren't doing what we want, then we have the power to select new representatives. If they're not doing what we want but we're re-electing them anyway, then that's our fault. No amount of money and corporate friends can buy a place in Congress. Instead, all that cash buys votes, but it's our fault for putting our votes up for sale.

      A beauracracy the size of the US government will always have corruption in it, but it still always comes back to us when we don't remove those responsible.

    17. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      If you're not a criminal, or an "unwanted race" under some future tyranny state, what does it matter that the government tracks your phone?

      That's rather shortsighted. Simply because you aren't oppressed right now doesn't mean you won't be later on. Better to stop such Orwellian policies before you need them removed than after...not to mention the ethics of allowing others to be oppressed and not giving a rip because it isn't you.

      And let's face it, "criminal" is a term that is defined by the government. I'm sure everyone here on /. has seen stories where "${Ridiculous_Action} is illegal in the state of..." For example, "Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face up to five years in jail," in Auburn, Alabama. How many guys do you think are "criminals" according to THAT law? Yet have they actually done anything wrong (assuming that it was consensual and both parties were over the age of consent)? Okay, so what...you've got a city full of guys who haven't actually done anything wrong, but are technically guilty of violating an absurd law in some obscure town in the south. Big deal, right? <tinfoilhat status="on">But suppose one of these guys is threatening the establishment...or is suspected of doing something wrong, even though the PD don't have enough evidence to get a warrant...or...or...or. Now, they have a technical violation of the law that can be used to arrest or harass him, which can have devastating effects, even if he is later found to be innocent. </tinfoilhat> Okay, that's a hypothetical situation that really dives into conspiracy-theorist territory, but I seem to remember a popular Ayn Rand quote warning about this.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    18. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can stop using Facebook or Google without uprooting my life. I can't stop using the United States of America without uprooting my life.

      I choose what I give over to Facebook or Google. The government is choosing what it takes from me.

      Facebook and Google are only beholden to me insomuch as I fund their operations. The government is beholden to me by the mere fact that I am a citizen and they should be implementing things for my best interest.

      Facebook and Google are interested in connecting someone with a product with someone who could make use of that product. The government is interested in many things including harassing people that don't agree with it.

      If Facebook or Google wrongs me I can sue them in open court and, if the wrong is great enough, I can have others join my suit. The government can, without input, shut down my suit before anyone sees it through a variety of means.

      Anyone else want to add a few more distinctions?

    19. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I want to come live in your world.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The government IS a disconnected entity of sociopaths. We the people have a small amount of leverage to decide which of the two biggest douchbags in the country we hate the least, and then provide all power to them. Sure people say just vote for someone else, and in many parliaments they have in recent years.

      As a result now countries like the UK and Australia have to battle with a hung parliament, a major party making back room deals with batshit crazy independents and the greens in order to get enough numbers to assume control of the country by one or two seats. The result is a complete breakdown in democracy. Party policy is decided from the top, and the rules go down that everyone MUST vote along the party lines regardless if they think it's right or not, that's not democracy. We have a leader running a campaign making promises, but in order to secure her seat she made a backroom deal which broke that promise, that is not democracy.

      My personal favourite; when the government in Australia introduced the carbon tax against heavy opposition, against the will of the people, and basically attempted to completely screw the economy in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression their position plummeted in the opinion polls. Their answer was "We do not decide policy based on popularity and keeping high position in the opinion polls." ... Wait fucking what? That is the whole point of a representative democracy. If your policy doesn't agree with the people you represent it shouldn't go through.

      So please do share to me how I may help govern my country? Do I vote the party run by a an incompetent lying spineless leader who will screw everything possible in order to stay in power? Do I vote for a man who has Jesus so entrenched in his mind he nearly became a pastor at risk of starting the next crusades if he's elected? Do I vote for the greens who will do anything possible to save a tree / koala despite what negative impact it may have on the country or relations with other countries? What about independents who really only care about their local constituents and can't come up with national policy to save them selves?

      What should we do to get a government for the people?

    21. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just heard this, "there are trades for using a service," line from my local librarian too, regarding the privacy of the information about the ebooks I check out from the library. As if the little weasel had any concern, care, power or discretion over the business arrangements between the public library (i.e. my municipal government here in Seattle, WA) and Adobe or Amazon, which supply the EPUB or Kindle files and have written the Apps for Android.

      What bothers me in the case of 'Smart' phone data, at least as presented here, is the notion that it's "the Cops' " system. It's not. It is a money making enterprise on the part of the wireless providers, and it's been offered with -0- care on the part of the Telecoms which have a history of assisting government agencies both legitimately and illegitimately. Thus we have the FISA laws since AT&T carried on providing all manner of information to agencies of the federal government, secretly without oversight, after WWII.

      I don't have a problem with the use of technology for legitimate law enforcement purposes, but it has to be 'reasonable.' I.e., there has to be judicial oversight in order the establish probable cause on the part of law enforcement OR intelligence agencies, and there has to be accountability. Congress allowed Telecoms a pass after 9/11, but it shouldn't go on forever just because it can.

      This BS about the genie is an argument to roll over on your own civil liberties and except Orwell as a crank rather than the civil libertarian whistleblower he intended to be.

    22. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 1

      Ive merged the two together, but they've become a bit jumbled in my mind.

      If you're not a child, you should think of hiding.

    23. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      I choose what I give over to Facebook or Google.

      A large chunk of the information Facebook and Google know about you was collected from people other than you.

      You can choose what you give Facebook/Google, but you cannot choose or limit what knowledge they have about you.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    24. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really so hard to get a warrant? If you can't convince a judge, why should a email to your cell provider suffice?

      Because you only need a warrant in case the entity in control of the data doesn't voluntarily. It's not your data, it's the provider's data and the provider doesn't have to say "not without a warrant", they can say "here officer, we are glad to help". Unless your cell phone contract stipulates that they will not share such data with law enforcement there are no legal barriers in place. Your constitution doesn't give a shit about privacy, which means that Tea Partiers and their ilk will bitch about how the founding fathers didn't interpret it as protecting privacy and the (unspecified, but always federal) government should not be able to protect it.

    25. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.. America, I mean. The idea of "We The People:" is great. But it hasn't actually existed for quite some time. Corporations and others with deep pockets are the government now. Not your average John Q. Taxpayer..

    26. Re:This just isn't right... in any way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.
      Since the Supreme Court sold the US to corporations, giving them personhood in the Citizens United ruling, and allowing them 'immunity' for their actions more recently, this country is the United Corporations of America. The backdoor .org called American Legislative Executive Council has been writing and purchasing your 'elected officials'. Don't take my word for it: www.sourcewatch.org. and www.alecexposed.org will clarify where all those strange and draconian laws are coming from with excellent references. If you find out who's cozying up to what corporation make sure they are not re-elected.

  5. Same rules for everyone by crow · · Score: 1

    What I want is to have the same rules for everyone, with the exception that the police can get a court order for special actions (searches, tracking, wiretapping, etc.). If it's legal for a private person to secretly track someone, then the police don't need a warrant. If it's not, then the police can't do it either unless they get a warrant. Any exceptions should be explicitly created by law, such as access to DMV records and criminal databases.

    If we had such a simple and straight-forward interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, then the debate wouldn't be over police powers, it would be about what anyone could do.

    1. Re:Same rules for everyone by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      This is wrong on its face. The people and the police are not of equal stature.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Same rules for everyone by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. The police should be more constrained in their actions than the average citizen. Unfortunately we've allowed things to get turned on their heads.

  6. Re:Not always more accurate by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

    Another source of data as well as triangulating based on towers, and calculating vector based on checkins would be timing advance.
    I have no idea if that is logged, but if it is, that narrows your position down to half a kilometre.

    --
    -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  7. 4th amendment. no new law required by emptybody · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Every time we pass a new law we water down the constitution.
    "papers" - is not strictly paper. it is where their data is stored.
    "effects" - whatever they have
    "houses" - where they store themselves and their stuff.
    "persons" - they themselves

    what more is needed?

    --
    comment directly in my journal
    1. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      A carve-out for law enforcement.

    2. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the "strict constructionists", it's gonna be hilarious. They are about as funny as biblical literalists.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by icebike · · Score: 2

      Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search. Just like having a detective follow you around is not a search.

      The fundamental problem here is that the drafters of the Constitution did not foresee technology that allowed a government to invade your privacy from a distance, and it never occurred to them that invasion of privacy itself was a problem. Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy. A huge oversight based on the era in which the document was written, where this kind of surveillance required manpower, which was always limited.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please upvote the parent here. This is EXACTLY the problem. We all know better. We know the Constitution should be protecting us and these laws are subservient to the Bill of Rights. Yet every time we allow these laws--pro or con--to be enacted, we collectively, as a Nation, say, "The Constitution is irrelevant." Of course, the more we say it, the more the police, legislators and judges believe it and act accordingly.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I'll play

      What's being searched? My understanding is they aren't accessing your phone and making it tell them where it is, the police are just homing in on a signal that your phone is emitting.

      Seems to me the best why to deal with this is to just add more to privacy laws, just like other PII, a person's location is protected information.

    6. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitutional right to play hide and seek!
      As frequently happens around here, people have taken to calling stuff you do in public "private".
      Stuff you do in public is public. People can see you, hear you, follow you, photograph you, tattle on you, and you can be convicted of crimes based on that evidence.
      Privacy doesn't enter into it.

    7. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WHat the fuck are you on about? "strict constructionists" would interpret the 4th as meaning, STRICTLY "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.". The carve outs and related stupidity is a result of the "living document" people, which you appear to be profoundly ignorant of. Stop discussing shit when you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, especially when all you're doing is making yourself look stupid by blaming EXACTLY THE WRONG group. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    8. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a lawyer, but nothing is being seized or searched, the cops are just following them using new technology, so I don't know how what you quoted applies?

    9. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's being searched?"

      Your location, which it has been determined, requires a warrant. If you'd read the GPS decision, you'd know this.

    10. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Arguably, if it's ex post facto it's not surveillance, it's searching data that I collected (or someone collected ostensibly on my behalf) which should require a warrant. And and I'd be willing to bet that if the founding fathers could have predicted our nation becoming a panopticon where every man, woman and child is being surveilled (by your definition) every minute of every day, I would be willing to bet my hypothetical time machine that they would have included wording against it.

    11. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Constitution clearly has a mechanism provided for amending it. If we don't like something in it or something needs to be clarified, we can do that without resorting to 'interpretation'.

    12. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by ifwm · · Score: 2

      "I'm not a lawyer, but nothing is being seized or searched"

      Again, this is incorrect. I have to assume you "nothing is being searched"ers simply haven't read the GPS decision, which clearly discusses why a warrant is required. From the GPS decision

      "“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’”

      They had a problem with monitoring a persons location without a warrant.

      "“I think it’s fair to say, the use of a a GPS device like this requires a warrant where they are tracking him for a long time,” Thomas Goldstein, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, said in a telephone interview.

      Alito wrote that Scalia’s opinion was “unwise” and said it should have examined “whether respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.” “For these reasons, I conclude that the lengthy monitoring that occurred in this case constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment,” Alito wrote.

    13. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy.

      Many Supreme Court justices and rulings would disagree with you on that point. Here's a fairly well-sourced discussion on the right of privacy.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Bigby · · Score: 1

      A strict Constitutionalist does not interpret the literal meaning in the sentences. (S)He tries to interpret the spirit of the sentences at the time they were written. Otherwise, they would think that people have the right to bear arms...as in the mammal's arms.

    15. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      Privacy was recognized as a right some time ago. It isn't just the 4th amendment that is under attack here.

      http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

    16. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by icebike · · Score: 1

      Therefore there is no constitutional right to privacy.

      Many Supreme Court justices and rulings would disagree with you on that point. Here's a fairly well-sourced discussion on the right of privacy.

      Which begins with EXACTLY what I said above: The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
      It then goes on to list the depressingly small instances where specific privacy rights are protected.
      Be careful what you cite.

      Wikipedia says this:

      Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      "“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’”

      Just devil's advocate here. But you're on slashdot, you should know your operators.

    18. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      "You can have ice cream and cake."
      "But I just want cake."
      "Too bad, only ice cream in addition to cake is allowed."

      Hmm. The English language doesn't seem to always use its conjunctions in a manner that unambiguously maps to their mathematical usage.

    19. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Shompol · · Score: 1

      It is very sad that your are comparing fundamental laws of a country to a fairy tale story written 2000 years ago. Unfortunately, this is exactly how our state and police treat it: "leave the laws to "constitution literalists" to study, we can do whatever the fuck we want".

    20. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "papers" in question are not yours, get that through your thick skull. The data is recorded, stored and controlled by your cell phone provider. If your contract doesn't say otherwise it's up to them if they are going to cooperate or dig in and require a warrant. Don't bitch about watering down the constitution unless you understand what is going on. This is a question of privacy, as such does the constitution not only not protect you from the state governments (and their PDs) in any way, it also means the congress can't pass a law to change that. The constitution was pre-watered in this case, apply for a refund from your favorite founding father.

    21. Re:4th amendment. no new law required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He means that most of the people who claim to be strict constitutionalists are frequently the same people who advocate more invasive laws. Also, it's time for you to calm down.

  8. You CAN turn off your phone. by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unlike GPS devices covertly installed on your vehicle by police, cell phones are in the user's control. You don't have to leave it turned on all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like visiting your mistress, you can simply turn the phone off before driving to her apartment. And if you're afraid the phone will still leak location information while in standby or power-off mode, you can simply remove the battery.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is an APP for th.... oh wait. You can't simply remove the battery on the iPhones. Droid users must be cheating on their wives! /not posting this from my company phone...

    2. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by dietdew7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think I should have to disable my phone to prevent the authorities from high jacking it. After all I paid for the phone and I'm a citizen not a subject. If they can convince a judge they can get a warrant, otherwise hands off.

    3. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike GPS devices covertly installed on your vehicle by police, cell phones are in the user's control. You don't have to leave it turned on all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like visiting your mistress, you can simply turn the phone off before driving to her apartment. And if you're afraid the phone will still leak location information while in standby or power-off mode, you can simply remove the battery.

      Well by your line of reasoning, automobile users are still in control because they could just not drive their car. You don't have to be in the car all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like visiting your mistress, you can simply ride the bus to her apartment. And if you're afraid the car will still leak location information while in your driveway, you can simply remove the battery...err, wait.

    4. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think turning it off disables tracking. You can't remove the battery from an iPhone so how do you know that it is really off?

    5. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're afraid the phone will still leak location information while in standby or power-off mode, you can simply remove the battery.

      I use an iPhone, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The basic problem here is that you are very publicly signalling your identity and location when the phone is turned on, but you don't want anyone to listen to that signal. Although I agree that phone companies shouldn't be cooperating, the signal is still there for anyone to receive.

    7. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      It's already non-trivial to remove the battery from an iPhone and I can pretty easily imagine a regulation that required phone manufacturers to mount the battery in such a way that removal would require destruction of the phone. That way, They'll spin it, if someone steals your phone, the provider/law enforcement will be able to track it. It will be done for only benevolent reasons. Like all these civil liberty eroding laws are. Sorry, citizen protection laws, I get so confused in my old age.

    8. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      There are known cases where officials or inteligence services has tapped to cell phones what have been just turn off by button. That is one reason why in Russia in high level meetings you don't just turn phone off, but you need to remove the battery and leave them to another room.

      If I remember correctly, there were even slashdot story about it few years ago.

    9. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. car analogy ftw.

    10. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After all I paid for the phone and I'm a citizen not a subject. If they can convince a judge they can get a warrant, otherwise hands off.

      How quaintly puritan an attitude you posses, good sir. I shall apprise good president Thomas Jefferson of your enlightened opinion.

      Good morrow to you!

      News bulletin: The US became a Police State a long, long time ago. Only a fool or an insane person would believe otherwise.

      Still, TERRISTS!!

    11. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by xianzombie · · Score: 1

      Not just in Russia. There's plenty of places in the US where phones stored outside of an area are required to have their batteries pulled too.

      A cell with a battery installed can still be used to track and eavesdrop, regardless of it's perceived power state.

    12. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by KillaPollo · · Score: 1

      Unlike surveillance cameras covertly installed into your television, pen and paper and in the user's control. You don't have to write on the paper all the time. In particular, if you are doing something private, like writing down your own thoughts, you can simply walk to the corner of the room in the blind spot of the surveilance camera. And if you're afraid the camera will still see you, you can simply not write on the piece of paper at all.

    13. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh...Just use the tin foil in your hat to make a Faraday cage for your iPhone.

    14. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      There is an APP for th.... oh wait. You can't simply remove the battery on the iPhones.

      Sounds like a damn good reason not to buy an iPhone then.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    15. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      I don't think I should have to disable my phone to prevent the authorities from high jacking it. After all I paid for the phone and I'm a citizen not a subject. If they can convince a judge they can get a warrant, otherwise hands off.

      The advantage to taking out the battery, especially when doing something private, is it protects you even when the police DO have a warrant!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    16. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ftw? try ftf.

    17. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny my 2 dollar hammer is able to remove the battery on any iphone just fine. Also
        disables gps just as easily.

    18. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you should get a contract that requires your cell provider to request a warrant before forking over your data.

    19. Re:You CAN turn off your phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if they can convince a judge. They can keep their grubby little hands off my shit.

  9. Faraday phone holders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faraday phone holders and wallets should become popular soon :) oh wait, did I just become a tinfoilmadhatter? :D

  10. Seriously? by oGMo · · Score: 1

    Same with Facebook. We, the users, make Facebook a great, big site with our data and our invested time. Then the government goons come along and say "Ha Ha! We'll find out everything we want about you by poaching your Facebook data!"

    Do you seriously think facebook stuck around because of your work and not because corporations already did the same thing and paid facebook to keep the servers on? Or do you just think that (nearly unrestricted) corporate privacy invasion is less bad than government privacy invasion?

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Seriously? by robsku · · Score: 1

      What has voluntarily agreeing to share data through FaceBook (including data that you share through FB visiting other websites than FB) with other parties have to do with violation of privacy? And don't even start with "people don't understand what they agree with" - people who ignore TOS and click "agree" have only themselves to blame. And I don't deny having agreed to some TOS without reading it now and then - but I would never blame my ignorance on others.

      Not only you have option to choose NOT to use FB if you want, in the end you are also in control of what data gets shared - and yes, I understand that not everyone understands how to control this by tools like noscript or even such simple stuff as choosing not to have your browser logged in FB 24/7, but even then you really don't have to even register a FaceBook account if you don't want to.

      While I don't think that the only solution is absolute removal of any surveillance, even warranted, this simply has nothing to do with privacy invasion. Nothing. Nada. You can't blame me for violating your privacy if I read your public profile information on Slashdot, so stop being stupid (actually you can, of course, but would you expect to be taken seriously?).

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  11. wrongly formulated by kipsate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems obvious to me, but bills like this should be formulated in terms of what they actually do, regardless of the technology used.

    In this case, the bill should simply state that a warrant is required when someones location is actively monitored within a certain precision for a certain time period.

    Same with laws around cookies, which is a topic among lawmakers in some countries. Instead targeting cookies, these laws should address the fact that a user is uniquely identified across sessions and/or websites. Cookies are just one way to achieve this, but there are others which do not even require cookies, such IP number in combination with all sorts of data such as browser agent, os, screen resolution etc. etc. that makes any user pretty much unique even without cookies.

    --
    My karma ran over your dogma
    1. Re:wrongly formulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Constitution actually covers most of these topics.

      Unfourtunatly, we don't really pay much attention to it anymore.

    2. Re:wrongly formulated by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Yes. If they just follow one simple rule, all these special laws are completely unnecessary. If the police or govt want to track you, search your property, see your activity from phone, bank, credit card, etc. transactions, they need to get a warrant. Following someone doesn't require a warrant if they're following your movement in public access spaces.

      Here's the simple rule:
      If the info isn't available to the public and isn't info you explicitly gave to the government, then a warrant should be required. No exceptions.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  12. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cell tower nearest my home is about 2 miles by crow, but 15 miles by car, on the other side of the reservoir.

    We're talking about radio waves, not vampires. They cross water and don't follow the road.

  13. Holy shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait wait wait, you're trying to tell me that the congress is actually planning to pass a law that doesn't fly in the face of the constitution and actually reinforces the 4th amendment?

    My calendar says 5/18 not 4/1...

  14. Re:Not always more accurate by jhoegl · · Score: 1

    Yes, and one of my concerns about this bill is that a kidnap victim was actually found by this method.

    Will obtaining a warrant delay this type of thing, is it worth it?

    Fine line in deed.

  15. Re:Not always more accurate by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    I'm only close to one tower. Triangulation plus GPS gives the best results on Google Maps.

  16. Re:Not always more accurate by Fri13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your cell phone pings at least three cell tower (if just at range) and selects strongest one of them.
    And even that your cell phone does not connect to cell, it does not mean cell have not received its signal. Cell phone simply rejects the connection either knowing it can not boost signal so it is too weak or it is just so weak that even max boost it can not hold the stable enough connection to cell.

    At country land GPS is more accurate (few meters at starts but even few centimers at longer time when holding at same position, depending how accurate the clock is in device) but even with cell towers (if you just get at least three or two longer time) you can get location few tens of meters or even the estimation of the area where you can be.

    GPS is great for the user. As user is the one who gets positioning as well, not just carrier. So user can give that location information to services trough data connection to get more nice features from the phone.
    But really, phone without GPS doesn't mean you can not be tracked.

    That is one reason why no one at battlefield is allowed to carry a own cellphone because at electronic warfare, such device is bright like a smoke grenade at daylight. Every device emmiting signal can be detected and pinpointed its location.

  17. Re:Not always more accurate by robot256 · · Score: 2

    Presumably they have more information than just which cell tower you are most strongly connected to. Cell towers generally have directional antennas, and have more of them in denser areas, so they will have a pretty good idea what direction from the tower you are in. Then they measure the signal strength required to reach you, and that gives an approximate distance. If there are multiple antennas on the tower, they might even get an idea of what environment you are in based on multipath reflections and stuff. Take the heading/distance data from a couple of towers, and you can get a very accurate position without being anywhere near the towers themselves.

  18. Incorrect by ifwm · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Except that surveillance, simply having an approximate idea where you are, is not now, and never was a search." Incorrect, if you read the decision on GPS, the problem was not with knowing where people were, either very specifically, or generally, but with the amount of time that knowledge was available. The previous decision makes it quite clear that even a general knowledge, over anything other than an incidental period of time, is a violation.

    1. Re:Incorrect by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the justices in the GPS case mostly objected to the fact that a physical device was attached to the suspects vehicle. If the tracking was entirely unintrusive as with tracking a cell phone it may have had a different outcome.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Incorrect by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest you read the decision. There were comments by some of the judges objecting to the narrowness of the decision. I think if it were cell phone tracking there is a decent chance they would have found that unacceptable too.

    3. Re:Incorrect by icebike · · Score: 1

      Those objectors did not prevail. Minority opinions never count.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  19. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, if we all needed an authority figure's permission to do anything at all, we'd probably all be safe, but it would suck to live that way.

    Freedom for all means that some people can unfortunately abuse it. And requiring permission to invade everybody's private life and violate their rights is more important than overreacting to scares of rare events like kidnapping and terrorism.

  20. Re:Not always more accurate by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

    Usually there's a pretty substantial delay before anyone is actually reported missing. How much of a difference would getting a warrant really make? I doubt very much.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  21. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we just install GPS devices in everyone at birth? Then there'd be no problems tracking anyone down!

  22. One solution by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    One solution to being illegally tracked like this is to remove the battery if you are wanting to remain private.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:One solution by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Sticking the phone in an RF shielded bag will also work, however it might be a little harder on battery life.

      The problem with these solutions is they defeat the purpose of carrying a phone.

    2. Re:One solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the phone has an "airplane" or "transmitters off" mode, it should have exactly the same effect but with vastly improved battery life.

    3. Re:One solution by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      And if you get an important phone call while your phone is off... I'm sorry, you shouldn't be doing something you want to remain private at the same time your loved ones might get into a car accident.

  23. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For a second there I thought you misspelled "chickens" and it made your statement much more entertaining.

  24. Re:Not always more accurate by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

    Your nearest GPS satellite is over 10,000 miles away (and had to travel around the planet to get into orbit). I'm not sure the distance or the journey have much to do with accuracy, but I dunno, maybe you know more about this than Matt Blaze.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  25. Re:Not always more accurate by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 2

    "Kidnap"? "obtaining a warrant"? Are you trolling or do you really think law enforcement would ever be expected to wait to get a warrant before rescuing a kidnap victim?

  26. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If CSI is any indication, the police write a GUI interface in VB to track your position.

  27. Even paranoids can have enemies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why I turn my cell phone off when I'm not actually on a call. And I'm thinking of removing the battery, too.

  28. To the Max! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze...

    "Awww, come on, ma! Couldn't you have named me 'Max Blaze'? Then I could have been a secret agent. Now I have to be a university professor >:-( "

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:To the Max! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He clearly has a bigger penis than you and didn't need to fantasize about being a secret agent. More brains too.

  29. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The cell tower nearest my home is about 2 miles by crow, but 15 miles by car, on the other side of the reservoir. GPS is much more accurate"

    The above is NOT insightful, it is stupid and wrong.

    Slashdot, how low you have sunk.

  30. Re:Not always more accurate by tattood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    do you really think law enforcement would ever be expected to wait to get a warrant before rescuing a kidnap victim?

    Only if they want to convict the kidnapper. Using warrants and following the law are sort of important when it comes to convicting someone of a crime.

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
  31. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you're confusing getting the victim's location with getting the kidnapper's location.

    In any case, don't they have fast warrant processes for this sort of situation?

  32. Re:Not always more accurate by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 2

    do you really think law enforcement would ever be expected to wait to get a warrant before rescuing a kidnap victim?

    Only if they want to convict the kidnapper. Using warrants and following the law are sort of important when it comes to convicting someone of a crime.

    You're not talking about looking for evidence of a commited crime, but a violent crime (murder, rape, kidnapping) in progress. There's a very big difference.

  33. Re:Not always more accurate by catsRus · · Score: 2

    Law enforcement also lives in the 21st century. How long does it take to call someone to get a warrant faxed/emailed to you?

  34. Re:Not always more accurate by dcsmith · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that no one has commented on the common misuse of triangulation in these discussions. The mechanism used is actually trilateration, not triangulation. I mean really - aren't we all supposed to be nerds here? :-)

    --
    This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
  35. Re:Not always more accurate by MrZilla · · Score: 3, Informative

    Presumably they have more information than just which cell tower you are most strongly connected to. Cell towers generally have directional antennas, and have more of them in denser areas, so they will have a pretty good idea what direction from the tower you are in.

    That is exactly right. Each cell tower has 2 - 6 cells, the borders of which are usually measured somewhat approximately by the operator. So they know which cell you are in, which tells them the rough area around the cell tower that you are in.

    They also have the ability to measure round-trip time for signals sent to your phone, giving a rough estimate of the distance from the tower to you, inside your cell (this actually becomes less accurate when signal reflection is an issue).

    Finally, the cell phone constantly measures _all_ cells it can find. Not just the ones belonging to your operator, but other operators as well, including (if the phone is capable) 2G, 3G and 4G cells. All this is reported back to the radio network controller to assist with handover decisions between cells, so your operator (and thus anyone else with enough authority) can access this information.

    --
    mov ax, 4c00h
    int 21h
  36. Re:Not always more accurate by tattood · · Score: 1

    You're not talking about looking for evidence of a commited crime, but a violent crime (murder, rape, kidnapping) in progress.

    I agree that getting the victim back alive is the number 1 priority, but in order to convict the person responsible for the crime, the police must collect evidence. If the evidence they find was obtained illegally, i.e. found as a result of tracking a cell phone without a warrant, then all of that evidence cannot be used in court, and the kidnapper has a much better chance of getting acquitted. IANAL, but that is my understanding of how criminal law works.

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
  37. How to pass the bill in a hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the government can do so without a warrant, then any citizen should have the same power. Just put up a web site with the 24/7 locations of all of the law makers and see how long until this gets passed.

  38. Not news and has long been true by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    When E911 was mandated and everyone had to be able to provide the position of a phone calling 911 to the emergency services, the original solution was that every phone was going to have to have a GPS in it. A lot of them do (and did) have a GPS chip, even ones that don't let you get access to the positioning information. But many providers didn't want to pay for that chip until the user was really going to be doing something with it that they would somehow get paid for so they went another way: with Differential Time Of Arrival, or DTOA. GPS frequently doesn't work when you are in a building but DTOA doesn't care about a few walls as long as it has signal because they don't slow the signal down much compared to the time it spends passing through air.

    The nifty thing about DTOA from a technological standpoint is that cell sites tend to have sectored antennas, so you only need two of them to triangulate a target, and even one site is going to significantly restrict your search area, to a relatively small arc.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Re:Not always more accurate by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

    Your cell phone pings at least three cell tower (if just at range) and selects strongest one of them. And even that your cell phone does not connect to cell, it does not mean cell have not received its signal. Cell phone simply rejects the connection either knowing it can not boost signal so it is too weak or it is just so weak that even max boost it can not hold the stable enough connection to cell.

    I live in a ravine a couple of miles from the nearest line-of-sight cell tower, and reception there is so poor that I had to install a signal booster to have even the proverbial snowball's chance of getting reception. Even with the signal booster, I've watched various geolocation apps* (with GPS turned off) try to locate the position of my cell phone. It's quite humorous to watch my position jump by several miles while I'm sitting in my living room. My point being, while I agree that it's possible to be tracked through cell towers alone -- and possibly even very, very accurately -- terrain and other factors can drastically affect the accuracy of the geolocation.

    *Yes, I understand that an app trying to determine location by measuring the signals from cell towers is not exactly the same thing as the cellular service provider determining location by seeing which towers can see you, but the point still stands -- terrain affects the ability to perform geolocation.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  40. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they can't use the Cell phone tracking, but they can still use the victim's testimony. The kidnapper still goes to jail. What's the problem?

  41. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent point. The nearest GPS satellite is in the sky, making it roughly the same distance by crow and car, and thus more accurate. QED.

  42. Re:Not always more accurate by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Whose cell phone are we tracking? The kidnapper or the kidnappee? If the latter, there's no legal problem as the kidnapper has no expectation of privacy from someone else's cell phone, only his own. Kidnapper? Yes, you need a warrant. I'm wondering if there would be an "exigent circumstances" workaround for crimes-in-progress (like hearing someone yell "help" from behind a locked door).

  43. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who saw "Street Kings" with Keanu Reeves? Exigent circumstances seems to apply here. Any company that doesnt want to get sued in to the ground by the victims family is going to accomodate this situation.

  44. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    God, ignorant people like you make this country a shithole to live in, because you're so caught up in believing you could never be wrong, more so never learning because you're mind is already set in a debate. Obviously, it takes that kind of mindset to spew such inconsiderate (of facts provided by the government themselves!) blather.

    WE SHOULD TAP ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT A WARRANT

    WHAT COULD GO WRONG

    Do you think the government is some kind of magical force that can never do wrong? Do you fail to realize that many of our laws are established through lobbying? Do you fail to see that the government is made up of humans like us, except in extreme places of power, where its been documented to be abused most frequently? No, I don't think the government needs any more power, the law and morality are two separate things; blindly adhering to the law is quite unethical.

    Now for god's sake, don't have children.

  45. Re:Not always more accurate by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    If phones claiming to have built-in GPS had "GPS Mode" - all transmitting antennas off and receiving antennas seeking stationary GPS satellites to triangulate - we wouldn't be having the problem in TFA. "GPS" has become as meaningless as "HD" or "100W equivalent".

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  46. Yea, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know which police departments are doing this and to what degree (at least let's see the budget and expense reports for it?) I have a hard time believing the ordinary police department could afford to implement and utilize this technology on a regular basis against regular citizens for regular crimes. It'd probably be something that turns up in the course of an investigation anyways, perhaps to establish alibi's or corroborate a detective's theories about the crime. Actively usin this shit around the clock for god knows what? Give me a break, I just don't see it being likely. I mean let's just keep this in perspective here. You aren't being tracked for your dimebag dope deal, oK?

  47. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a second there I thought you misspelled "chickens" and it made your statement much more entertaining.

    I did the exact same thing!

  48. yours doesn't? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure I've seen phones with GPS chips where you could choose whether or not to use "assisted GPS". If you turn off your cell radio and turn off assisted GPS, then all GPS should work as you describe.

  49. Re:Not always more accurate by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    But they do get reflected by objects causing unpredictable time of arrival between cell towered and phones.

  50. Re:Not always more accurate by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    If the phone belongs to a kidnap victim there's probable cause.

  51. Re:Not always more accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your argument is invalid because BANANA!

  52. Read the act? by Dun+Kick+The+Noob · · Score: 1

    There are exceptions in the act for almost everything, 2604 is perhaps the most comprehensive. They should fight it only because it creates a lot of paper work.

    Sec. 2604. Emergency situation exception

    (a) Emergency Situation Exception- Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, may intercept geolocation information if--
    (1) such officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists that--
    (A) involves--
    (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
    (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or
    (iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime; and
    (B) requires geolocation information be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained;
    (2) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered to authorize such interception; and
    (3) an application for an order approving such interception is made within 48 hours after the interception has occurred or begins to occur.

  53. Re:Not always more accurate by BeanThere · · Score: 1

    If only there could be some sensible approach to solve that problem, like simply allowing an exception for easily provably exceptional circumstances like kidnappings. If only that was possible. Unfortunately it's not, so we must follow one extreme or the other, always a warrant or never a warrant. Too bad.

  54. Re:Not always more accurate by Smallpond · · Score: 2

    Does one success make up for the raids on wrong addresses that have occurred?
    http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

  55. Why so serious?? by cultjam · · Score: 1

    Batman caught the Joker with cellphone sonar, not the Riddler.

  56. Re:Not always more accurate by robsku · · Score: 1

    I did not know that in USA a hostage situations are solved by blindly raiding a building - or is it not considered as hostage situation when someone is kidnapped in USA?

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.