Police Don't Need a Warrant To Track Your Disposable Cellphone

New submitter Blindman writes "The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is okay for police to track your cellphone signal without a warrant. Using information about the cell tower that a prepaid cell phone was connected to, the police were able to track a suspected drug smuggler. Apparently, keeping your cellphone on is authorization for the police to know where you are. According to the ruling (PDF), '[The defendant] did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location.' Also, 'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'"

Comments

So it begins

[ThatsMyNick]

The first step in mass surveillance.

Re:So it begins

[game kid]

The first?

Re:So it begins

[TheGratefulNet]

stallman is crazy, in some ways; but he was RIGHT that we are carrying 'involuntary tracking devices'. and we even PAY for them, out of our own pockets!

its not really 'tinfoil', anymore, to want to remove your battery when the phone is not in use. (not sure what apple fans to, but normal phones can at least have their battery taken out easily and on-demand).

Re:So it begins

[cpu6502]

Yeah they've been surveilling us for years.

And what do you expect? If you're driving down the highway and light is bouncing off your car, are police supposed to shut their eyes and stop intercepting the signal (thus letting you get away)? Whether the EM waves you are emitting are visible or not makes no difference.

Re:So it begins

[Gr8Apes]

Wrap in electrostatic bag after turning it off.

Re:So it begins

[RajivSLK]

Whether the EM waves you are emitting are visible or not makes no difference.

Yes it does. What if a device is invented that can detect the minute changes in gravity that occur when an object moves about. Lets assume that by using this device the police could reconstruct a 3d rendering of an entire city include all the people in it and what they are doing. Does that sound like a good idea?

Whether your cellphone signal can be tracked without a warrant is not a technical issue. It's a philosophical, moral, societal, political and legal question.

Re:So it begins

[camperdave]

Yes, because a special detector violates the reasonable expectation of privacy clause.

Re:So it begins

[pushing-robot]

They turn off the phone? Or just switch it to "Airplane Mode"?

And please don't say 'but it could still be transmitting!' We have these amazing gizmos called 'antennas' that can—I am told—detect radio transmissions. Transmitting also takes power. If smartphones really kept transmitting while off or in air mode, (a) the battery would drain relatively quickly even when the phone is off, (b) some paranoiac with a microwave receiver would have already discovered the unauthorized transmissions, and (c) the FAA (among other groups) would be all over the manufacturer.

Oh, but I forget: TV provides irrefutable evidence 'they' can track phones which are turned off; at least, when 'they' are not too busy uncropping photos and tracking your IP with a GUI interface made in Visual Basic.

Re:So it begins

[Ghostworks]

The sad thing is, this is actually pretty consistent with how the courts have worked for a long, long time now. (IANAL, grain of salt, etc.):

There are essentially two arguments here. First, the cellphone pings off of cell towers to identify nearby towers with best service for hand off. Even if this process wasn't wireless, your agent (the phone) would be actively attempting to engage the agent of a publicly-available private service (the tower). This is similar to how it may (and has) been argued that you have no expectation of privacy to traffic between some servers, or to emails that are stored on a third-party server, because that third party can read any of them at will. For phones, the content of a call is protected by wiretapping laws. But the connections used to establish quality of service for a future call which may never be placed? This ruling states that that is not protected. This is ultimately similar to the question of how private are the ADDRESSES printed on your private mail are (which, since they need to be public for delivery, is not very).

Second, the connection is wireless, and the phone does emit a signal. This is a second way the ruling states that a phone may be tracked. If you're just tossing your private radiation out into a public space, well, then it's fair game for anyone who can detect it. This is pretty much the same logic that makes radiation detectors legal for counter-terrorism uses, and thermal imaging legal for tracking down hidden grow-houses. (Note that some jurisdictions have passed separate laws specifically illegalizing such practices, but some still let it fly.) The logic on this isn't too far out there, either: it's just an extension of a physical argument to technological space. In particular, it's an extension of the question of how much of an expectation of privacy you have for private goings on that are visible from public land. Can you expect your pot farm to be somewhat hidden by privacy laws if you have it on private land? What if you have no fence? What about a fence that's just too short to block the view from a building across the street? What about the case of a passer-by in a helicopter near your property? What about satellite imagery?

Another old ruling that was in the news recently upheld the container interpretation of a cell-phone's data. It was argued that a cell phone's data is not protected from search because it is similar to the data of a pager, which was previously decided to be unprotected. Pagers were not protected because they are simply containers of numbers, akin to an address book, which was also searchable. (The earlier analysis overlooks the fact that pagers are not address books, since they record reals numbers traceable to people who DEFINITELY DID try to contact you, as opposed to numbers that may or may not be real, for people that you may or may not try to contact at some point. The newer analysis just ignores how many non-phone-like things a modern phone does.)

The main issue here is that if it's legal for a human to do something, a group of humans using technology to do the same thing 100 times better, then 1000 times over is still legal. At the point where quantity becomes a quality all its own, legislators need to step in and acknowledge that the game has changed, because jurists will almost never do that on their own. Another issue is that jurists often work from precedent, and try to apply the general, technology-agnostic case to the modern, technology driven case. Generally, that's a pretty good idea, but you have to be careful to recognize when a preceding metaphor no longer represents reality (e.g. a smart phone is like a cell phone that is like a pager that is like an address book that is not that private).

Another huge problem is that implementation and application are important, and a sound decision from general terms can mean a lot of grief in the real world. For example, consider locks. Locks do not protect your house. Most of them are too flimsy to offer real resistance, especially on a wooden doo

Re:So it begins

[ls671]

Yeah they've been surveilling us for years.

You are right, for thousands of years. I work for a surveillance agency and we have specialized in brain wave surveillance since ever. This is all we need really. We watch the watchers using primitive technology and who think they are watching, really...

Re:So it begins

[Zygodac]

Have they ever needed a warrant to get your address from your landline number? I don't think so... Only for a wiretap, right? What's the difference here?

The difference here is that your land line is static, it does not move. Your cellphone may move and most likely does move around a lot. not only are they making a detailed path of travel that you took. This grants them the ability to create a trail of evidence of where you have been and where you are going in real time, all without a warrant. Additionally it tracks you weather you are in a private residence or a public space, they make no distinction, and can then use that in creating a case of who you talked to. This just makes me want to start using pay phones again, though the problem with that is finding a payphone nowadays.

And last but not least the land line location is used for fire and medical along with police. So if you are having a heart attack while a burglar is lighting your house on fire all the public services can be notified and make it there without having to drive around going, "so which house is it again?"

Re:So it begins

[ls671]

In reference to your sig:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050993&cid=41003473

Re:So it begins

[Obfuscant]

And last but not least the land line location is used for fire and medical along with police.

Our local city tried to implement a tax on all cellphones in the city to provide for the 911 dispatch center. Their excuse? Because the vast majority of the calls to 911 came from cell phone users, and cell phone users were not paying the E911 and other fees that landline telephone users were paying. (The vote was a clear majority against and the idea hasn't popped up for the last two years or so again.)

So, I'd say that your argument trying to differentiate between cell and landline based on landline location being used for fire and medical is epic fail.

Re:So it begins

[VortexCortex]

(not sure what apple fans to, but normal phones can at least have their battery taken out easily and on-demand).

Apple is actually leading the way in this regard. Some people say this is wrong, but I hear that you get the same effect simply by holding the phone a certain way...

Re:So it begins

[plover]

If only my device drivers were as reliable as the ones they routinely subvert on CSI:Sacramento! Hell, I can't get a video feed out of my TV tuner card half the time, and the web cam only works on its own schedule, not mine. And audio drivers? Forget about it!

So good luck, spooks. If I wake up tomorrow and all those systems start to work, I know who to thank.

Re:So it begins

[davester666]

"Also, 'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'"

What I find amazing is that his cell phone was used to transport a significant amount of drugs.

Re:So it begins

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

> stallman is crazy, in some ways

Why is that? Because he's a stubborn old man who stays on message, not drinking the kool aid of anyone? Or do you say that just because "everybody else thinks so", or you don't want to be associated with "them freetards".

If you're going to quote or credit the guy, acknowledging that his predictions and warnings have been spot on for decades, at least have the decency to avoid name-calling and scorn.

Re:So it begins

[Stirling Newberry]

It sounds like a bad idea whose time is coming.

Privacy and IP are really a fight over how much of society's technological advancement and cultural production belong to the public, and how much belongs to elites. The answer seems to be that everything since the invention of the light bulb belongs to someone who can charge you rent on it, or monitor your use of it, for any reason, or no reason at all.

Re:So it begins

[Stirling Newberry]

And if they knew it was transporting contraband, either they should get a warrant or argue hot pursuit.

Re:So it begins

[Stirling Newberry]

Since even dropping a book into a black hole does not destroy the information, by your argument, no one has any expectation of privacy at any time whatever under any circumstances, because with enough computing power and enough devices, anything is observable.

The government is not a god, and is not entitled to omniscience as the default.

Re:So it begins

[Gripp]

I semi see your point; EM and light waves are nearly the same thing. but that said, much like light they ought to be required to be within range to pick up the EM waves directly, not watching from over a tower. Same concept as video surveillance vs first-hand witness. If it is okay to use towers to watch everything you do over the EM spectrum then it follows that it is okay to do so over the light spectrum - yet it isn't. well, *yet* at least. Regardless, I'm not willing to accept tools like this to aid in stripping our freedom, and more specifically my freedom is more important than catching criminals without due process. Not sure what the big deal with simply getting a fucking warrant is.

Re:So it begins

[DeadCatX2]

Whether the EM waves you are emitting are visible or not makes no difference.

Justice Scalia would beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

The fact that thermal imaging equipment is not commonly available to the public means that the police need a warrant in order to employ it.

Re:So it begins

[cpu6502]

>>>>>Whether the EM waves you are emitting are visible or not makes no difference.
>>
>>What if a device is invented that can detect the minute changes in gravity

I was discussing ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES dumb fuck. What the hell are you talking about?!?!? Gravity waves have nothing to do with what I was discussing (the police intercepting the EM that you are giving off).

  Way to invoke a strawman argument (inserting words into my mouth I never said). Shit head.

Re:So it begins

[RajivSLK]

Your argument seemed to be that he was emitting radiation and therefore he has no right of privacy. I said- what if we are all giving of some information that can be used to determine what we are doing (in the form of gravity waves) then should we all be exposed? (See how that works? I made the information given off by EM radiation equivalent to the information given off by gravity waves and then used that parallel to pose a new question!) .

Since you can seem to connect the dots you must be a dumble fucker

Captcha's on Slashdot should be replaced with a simple IQ test; it would keep people like you from posting much to the benefit of everyone else.

Also, look up straw-man dumb fuck. Responding to opinion with a hypothetical question doesn't make a straw man fallacy, bumble bee fucker.

Re:So it begins

[DedTV]

Only if they point it at you in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The cops need a warrant to hack into your security system and watch you on your home security cameras. But if they want to scan the security cameras at Walmart to see if you're in the store, they only need Walmart's permission.
The same kind goes in this case. They still need a warrant to hack into your phone or listen into phone calls. But they only need the tower operator's permission to look around and see if you're "there". And having them monitor for connections is the electronic equivalent of handing out a picture and a business card to employees at place you're known to frequent and asking them to give them a call if you show up. It's their tower and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while you're there.

In fact, a disposable is less private (if only slightly) as as most carrier contracts have at least some level of customer privacy protections built into them. Disposables often have no contract and thus no limitations on what the carriers can give over to police if asked.

What is the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location."

Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, I mean you are literally broadcasting who, where and what you are saying, all one need do is listen.

Talk about a non-story. It's not a real scandal like Obama eating dog or anything.

Re:What is the point

[Baloroth]

"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location."

Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, I mean you are literally broadcasting who, where and what you are saying, all one need do is listen.

Talk about a non-story. It's not a real scandal like Obama eating dog or anything.

So, where are the publicly available devices capable of tracking this signal. I'm waiting for it, because I have a few senators, congressmen, and judges I think should be tracked 24/7. After all, they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy, do they? And therefore they should be able to be tracked using the cell phone, right? Note: this isn't entirely a joke, I honestly think people should find a way to track lawmakers and judges if this decision doesn't get overturned. Obviously, the decision should be overturned, but if not, that would be a good way to insure a law protecting such information is enacted.

Of course people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. It isn't publicly available, and in fact the police had to request it from the cell phone company. Just because you can track someone using it quite easily does not mean they do not have an expectation of privacy.

Re:What is the point

[trout007]

I thought it would be fun to run for Congress on a libertarian platform. I would make it a reality show in that I would have a camera following me broadcasting everything I do live on the internet. A cross between The Truman Show and Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Then I realized that Federal Employees are not allowed to run for partisan political office because of the Hatch Act.

Re:What is the point

[fm6]

Yum. Dog. Drool. We liberals love dog meat!

I agree with you that the ruling seems to make sense. But how is it not news? It places an important market on the boundary between public and private.

And you know, next time I'm smuggling drugs, I certainly will remember to turn off my cell phone.

Re:What is the point

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the whole thing, if it's public then why is it illegal for us mortals to receive and decode cell phone signals? Why are there certain satellite signals that are illegal for me to receive? I mean it's just data being blasted out right at me.

Re:What is the point

[IAmR007]

Also, does the fact that many phones support voice commands mean that it should be suspected that the microphone is always on? If all the cell providers decide they get remote access to your phone, does that enable all phones to be used as warrant-less bugs? Cell phones aren't exactly voluntary these days. "Required by our civilization" should be the benchmark, not the Amish.

Re:What is the point

[roman_mir]

At this point in time, ideas like yours may put you into a terrorist watch list.

You want to disclose information about public officials, you want to make that information public?

Here is what you should find and read in that article I linked to:

On Wednesday, an administrator for the WikiLeaks Twitter account wrote that the site suspected that the motivation for the attacks could be that particularly sensitive Stratfor emails were about to be exposed. A hacker group called AntiLeaks soon after took credit for the assaults on WikiLeaks and mirrors of their content, equating the offensive as a protest against editor Julian Assange, âoethe head of a new breed of terrorist.â As those Stratfor files on TrapWire make their rounds online, though, talk of terrorism is only just beginning.

You see, providing the public with information about the inner government workings is now called 'new breed of terrorism' and I am very confident that what you are talking about can be construed as disclosing information about the inner government working.

---

This is what happens when people give up their individual freedoms, and it all starts with the calls to equality, social contract, etc., all of which means simply one thing and one thing only: giving more power to the government.

Once the government has the powers over the individuals for the sake of "ensuring equality" at this point the government simply has the power over the individuals and there is nothing that can take that power back.

Re:What is the point

[Lost Race]

Why in the world do you expect that lawmakers will be beholden to the laws they make?

It's a reasonable expectation in an unreasonable world.

Re:What is the point

[AmazingRuss]

No, but you can log the data yourself.

Re:What is the point

[cheekyjohnson]

I disagree, this data is transmitted willingly by the user over a radio, not unlike standing out in the street and yelling "down with King George".

No such thing is happening. When I make a call, I expect that the person I'm calling is the only one hearing. Actually, I don't so much 'expect' it as much as I think that's the way it should be. At the very least, I don't want my own government spying on random people. 'Public' or not, restrictions can be put on the government.

This bit of logic is a nice way for the government to justify any type of spying as long as the signals are deemed to be 'public'.

Re:What is the point

[hairyfeet]

Yeah...enjoy your trip to Gitmo friend. In case you missed the memo the rich and powerful? They don't have to play by our rules, just the filthy peasants have to abide by those. Did you see anybody bust the Bush daughters when they went on national TV and talked about burning mix CDs for their family and friends? Of course not because those laws are for OTHER people, not the rich and powerful.

Re:What is the point

[slew]

Of course people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. It isn't publicly available, and in fact the police had to request it from the cell phone company. Just because you can track someone using it quite easily does not mean they do not have an expectation of privacy.

I think this is very analogous to fact that there is no legal expectation of privacy with cordless phones, but there is for wired phones. Cell phones are even more public than cordless phones in that they are pinging a public "tower", not a private leased line.

On a more technical note, in asia, it used to be very popular to have a charm attached to your cell phone that lit up when you got a call. I think it was called a MoPod. These $10 devices would be an example of a publically available device to capture a ring signal. For the do-it-yourself-ers in the crowd (and I know you're out there), here's a pointer on taking this to the next level with a small mod on a cheap throw-away phone... Professional devices are of course more expensive and only technically available to law enforcement.

Must have been small time...

[gatfirls]

...To fit the drugs in his phone. Or he had an 80's brick phone?

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if the police obtain a warrant, no. I think few people here would object to police tracking someone's phone /with a warrant/.

Warrants need evidence.

So it ends

[gatfirls]

...our reasonable expectation of privacy and the experiment of civil liberties. The sad thing is that we have lost a lot of them to "aid in fighting" un-winnable and/or lost wars.

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

No, because I shouldn't have to turn off my right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and/or property.

Re:So it ends

[jxander]

Worst part is, I can already see how the government might address the issue ... Cell phone (and other hardware) manufacturers will be required to include a sticker on the packaging, or maybe just a footnote in the instruction manual that states : "This device complies with FCC regulation 42.x and emits location tracking data that can be collected and used by law enforcement. Ownership of this device implies acceptance of government tracking and anal probing in compliance with .... " etc etc etc

In fact, it might already be there. I sure as hell haven't read all my fine print.

Re:So it ends

[danomac]

So leave your phone at home.

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

Really, and you seem to think privacy is not associated with life, liberty, happiness?

How about I release your credit card numbers? your SSN?
Make public personal information?

You think that does not affect your life, your freedom, nor your happiness?

I think your crazy if you think not.

Re:So it ends

[rgbrenner]

If I walk down a street, anyone within a block or two can see me, and we all agree there was no right to privacy... after all I went out in public.

But you put a transmitter in your pocket that broadcasts your location to everyone within 45 miles.. and suddenly you're shocked other people know where you are?

You've got to be kidding me.

It's your phone. It's your transmitter.

STOP transmitting your location to the whole city if you don't want people to know where you are.

Re:So it ends

[gatfirls]

No, it's about 4th amendment rights. They just (like always) liken the data they get some simple "technology" like a drug dog or a "locating beeper" to justify their ruling. It is not like or the same as those things, it is them jumping on to a private network and searching your data to locate/track you. If you want to liken things, the ruling is saying it's can tap/intercept your phone calls because you were talking outside and they could have heard you if they were standing next to you. Read the ruling, it's pretty flimsy.

Re:So it ends

[profplump]

Use of radio (or other shared infrastructure) is not equivalent to broadcasting. Cell phone communications are, by law, only allowed between the service provider tower and the subscriber handset and a nontrivial effort is taken to secure that unicast communication against eavesdropping.

Re:So it ends

[chill]

It does NOT broadcast your location to everyone within 45 miles. GSM, for example, encrypts the signal. Details about whom the signal belongs to and what it contains are between the subscriber and the service.

What this ruling is about isn't "other people", it is the State conducting a surreptitious search without a warrant. The nature of the radio transmission and the encryption give me a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:So it ends

[ubrgeek]

Exactly. There doesn't need to be a sticker on your phone saying the police can track you. Does the contract you sign when you get the phone say the information won't be turned over to law enforcement? Probably not. Has there been enough precedence over the years to give you a reasonable expectation that if law enforcement approaches a TELCO provider with whatever authorization is required they will turn it over? I'd say yes. Now, the converse is true: If the government is allowed to do this stuff in the pursuit of apprehending people under investigation in "crimes in progress" (in this case smuggling) then if they are not actively pursuing a person for a crime in progress (i.e. the "passive" recording of license plates by those devices they mount on the back of squad cars, etc.) then they should be legally bound to (a) come public with their data retention rules and (b) destroy the data after X amount of time. And checking passing cars on the off chance that the driver is involved in something isn't a crime in progress. It's fishing.

Too bad it's become increasingly apparent they just don't give a crap.

Re:So it ends

[jamstar7]

So you're saying you advocate security through obscurity, rather than making the systems that use that information more secure by design such that I could publish those things and not worry?

More like, "That's nifty technology. Why can't you be bothered to get a warrant to use it for law enforcement purposes?"

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

Do you have any idea what the term "Liberty" means in the Constitution? The term was intentionally chosen because it deals with several items, one of which is privacy.

Re:So it ends

[Jane Q. Public]

"Also, 'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'"

This ruling pre-supposes that contraband is being transported. In fact there is no way to know that for sure until AFTER an arrest. So this is a completely specious argument.

It would be like him ruling that police can look in the trunk of your car anytime they want, because you "might be" transporting drugs or something. It's a completely bogus argument.

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

Yours is an argument from fallacy, and not a very good one. The preaching of "If you have nothing to hide why can't the Government (or anyone else) know everything you do/own/have/etc... about you at all times" has obviously paid off. It helps that the majority of people today are very ignorant to the arts of rhetoric and fallacy.

Re:So it ends

[jamstar7]

The sad thing is that we have lost a lot of them to "aid in fighting" un-winnable and/or lost wars.

Of course we won the Iraq war. We got rid of their WMD, didn't we? 'Mission Accomplished.'

Except Iraq didn't have any WMDs or they would have used them the instant we invaded. How many months did El Presidente stand in front of a camera saying "You've always lied to us. Even when you're lying, you're lying to us. We're coming to your town to get you. Your government will be destroyed, as will your way of life. We intend to kill you." With absolutely nothing to lose, and El Presidente made that damned clear in every broadcast, why not try to take a few infidels with you when you're gonna die anyways?

And believe it or not, chemical and biological weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they're weapons of mass death. They don't fuck up property values one bit except for the cleanup. The MOAB, on the other tentacle... Oh, wait, that was an American weapon system, deployed and used by Americans.

Re:So it ends

[Anonymous Coward]

That analogy would make sense if cell phone transmitters only operated in public places and were untraceable from more than a block or two away.

Cell phones only "transmit their location" because they are designed to connect to nearby towers. It's just how they work. There's no reason for the towers your phone is using to be public knowledge; that's between you and your phone company. And law enforcement, *if they have a warrant*. An average citizen couldn't call up Verizon and track anyone's phone to find them when they aren't out in public, so why should anybody who claims to be a cop be able to without a documented and valid reason?

If we were talking about people using their GPS to publicly announce where they are (Facebook, Foursquare, etc.), that might be different. But just turning on a cell phone?!

Re:So it ends

[froggymana]

Really, and you seem to think privacy is not associated with life, liberty, happiness?

How about I release your credit card numbers? your SSN?
Make public personal information?

You think that does not affect your life, your freedom, nor your happiness?

I think your crazy if you think not.

to be fair your SSN is only 9 digits long, and only contains only numbers. overall, it's not very secure.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

So get rid of the cel phone if it bothers you that much. You know damn good and well SOMEBODY is going to track that location data, legally or not.

No? Then it doesn't bother you that much.

Don't act based on how things should be. Act based on how they are.

Re:So it ends

[Anguirel]

On the contrary, I'm in favor of requiring the warrant for this. I'm saying the argument that privacy is necessary because there is currently danger in the release of SSN, CC#, and so on is security through obscurity. That's not a good argument for needing to retain privacy.

Re:So it ends

[camperdave]

Details about whom the signal belongs to and what it contains are between the subscriber and the service.

I think you mean between the phone manufacturer and the service. The subscriber has no details and is unlikely to be able to obtain details about what signals are coming from her phone.

Re:So it ends

[cheekyjohnson]

No? Then it doesn't bother you that much.

Not necessarily true. Someone could be ignorant of the possibility that they could be tracked. Someone could know about the possibility of being tracked but realize that they need a cell phone.

The fact that someone is living in a hostile environment doesn't indicate that they like it/don't care.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

Sounds like their problem, not yours or mine.

Re:So it ends

[cheekyjohnson]

What? You said: "Then it doesn't bother you that much."

I pointed out that that isn't necessarily true. I didn't mention anything about problems.

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

My apologies for misunderstanding your position, and my thanks for additional points as your position is a bit more clear.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

What semantic twiddlery is this? Not knowing that the device you carry tracks your every move isn't a problem?

Re:So it ends

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, whether or not it's considered a problem would depend on the individual.

Just that you can't how much people care about something for them. Your "Sounds like their problem, not yours or mine." didn't have anything to do with my reply.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

We don't appear to be having the same conversation.

Re:So it ends

[Obfuscant]

Use of radio (or other shared infrastructure) is not equivalent to broadcasting. Cell phone communications are, by law, only allowed between the service provider tower and the subscriber handset

Which law are you referring to? The laws of physics say that using a nondirectional antenna on a transmitter means that the signal goes EVERY direction, even directly away from this "service provider tower" of which you speak. No man-made law can supercede this. Now, what the human law DOES say is that it is illegal for the manufacture and sale of receiving equipment of certain kinds that can receive the bands of frequencies used by those services, except to certain people, which is a very different thing. Guess who gets the exceptions?

This law was pushed through by the cellphone companies, simply because the ignorant people using cell phones did not understand that a WIRELESS device they were using to communicate with a distant party was using RADIO waves to do so, and that just like they used their radios to pick up AM and FM RADIO waves, other people could, of course, use THEIR radios to pick up the radio waves carrying these communications.

Today, if the cell companies tried this, I would expect an uproar that big business had the legislators in their pockers and was running roughshod over the rights of the citizen. Instead I'm seeing people here siding with those large corporations in creating an expectation of privacy where any intelligent person would know there is none.

Yes, there is some effort made, today, by the cell carriers to make listening to the conversations hard, but this is not an issue of someone listening to the conversation, it's a case of tracking the transmitter.

If you have a radio in your pocket and it is transmitting, someone else can pick up that signal and track it. Period. End of physics lession 101. If you don't want someone tracking your radio signal, don't transmit one. End of Common Sense 102. Take notes, there will be a test.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

Forgive me, I didn't mean to interfere with your constitutional right to be melodramatic.

Re:So it ends

[rgbrenner]

That analogy would make sense if cell phone transmitters only operated in public places

Why is that a requirement? If I walk around my home with the windows open, I can't claim a right to privacy if someone sees.

and were untraceable from more than a block or two away.

Because the bigger the broadcast, the more you have a right to privacy???

Did you think at all before posting that?

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

When I said privacy, I was talking about the 4th amendment. The word "privacy" doesn't appear in the constitution, but one's right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure can be seen as a protection of privacy from government (as in Roe v Wade). The court is saying that tracking a radio signal isn't a violation of your fourth amendment rights because emitting the signal isn't a private act.

I did read the ruling. Your analogy to tapping a landline makes no sense — a tap actually intercepts communications. A better analogy would be a cop walking by your house and looking to see if there's a telephone line running out to the street. Or like the cops using your license plate to track your movements, which is an analogy that appears in the ruling.

Re:So it ends

[b4dc0d3r]

From the ruling, the police lalready suspected, or had reason to believe, that device was involved in illicit activities. Whomever the owner and/or posessor, that device was a target. Not a randomly monitored device.

And, "unreasonable search" does not apply when the contract says your information may be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant. The provider does not want to incur court costs on your behalf, so why would you expect them to?

If you use a third party of any kind, assume that it is an informant. If you have nothing to hide, the informant has nothing to divulge. If, like everyone on the planet, you do have something to hide, don't use a third party.

How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?

Your data is only private if your contract with your provider specifically says that nothing will be divulged without proper legal justification. Expect to pay a lot more for those services, and expect to pay using a cash-backed pre-paid credit card outside of your home town. Or, don't drive around with 1100 pounds of marijuana.

Or, if you are caught with 1100 pounds of marijuana, maybe you have standing to sue the FDA for failure to exercise due diligence in the last 3 requests to re-classify marijuana, and you should fight that while you have time on your hands.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

What idiot talk show did you get that from? Have you even read the constitution? I suggest you do so now,

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

I chose a plain text version so you could search for the word "liberty". I think you'll find that nowhere is the word used the way you describe.

Re:So it ends

[Jane Q. Public]

"Wrong. Multiple forms of surveillance can be combined to determine whether something is contraband. If a helicopter pilot observes a truck at the border being loaded with people, would it be unreasonable to track any cellphone transmission coming from that truck?"

That's an irrelevant, straw-man argument.

In your example, they already have probable cause (seeing people packing into a truck certainly would be that), which makes the argument moot!

But it's pretty clear the judge intended his ruling to be outside the purview of probable cause... otherwise there would have been exactly zero point in making it, because they can already get a warrant or subpoena to perform surveillance if they have probable cause.

So yes, his ruling and your argument are both specious. You didn't think it through.

Re:So it ends

[erp_consultant]

Exactly. It's just another excuse for the government to further intrude into our private affairs. How many of these so called drug dealers do they expect to apprehend? And of that, how many of them are just selling bag of weed to one of their friends? For this, every cellphone user in America has to give up their right to privacy? Same goes for data privacy. The latest flavor of the month is the war on "terror", whatever the hell that is. Homeland Security maintains something called the "no-fly list". You can end up on it for no reason whatsoever. You won't get any notification that you're on the list, nor any reason why. The only way you'll even know you're on it is if you go to an airport and discover that boarding a plane is even more of a pain in the ass than it used to be. So you have to send a letter to some bureaucrat in Washington who researches it and clears you. Then you get a letter from said bureaucrat absolving you of all wrongdoing at which point they give you something called a "redress number". So you put the redress number in your airline profile and DHS leaves you alone once again. Naturally the letter contains no details on why the hell you ended up on it in the first place, why you were "cleared", or how to avoid it in the future. Basically you are convicted of a crime you didn't commit, without a trial or representation or even just cause for the accusation. Then you are effectively given parole (the redress number) that goes with you like a ball and chain for the rest of your life. Yeah...way to fight the "war on terror", boys. Thanks for nothing.

Re:So it ends

[jamstar7]

I'm fully aware of the chemical weapons used on the Kurds. That was back in the 80s and 90's. They were all used up.

Oh, and btw, the Americans sold them to Iraq to use on Iran.

Re:So it ends

[Jane Q. Public]

To put it a different way:

Unless your "multiple forms of surveillance" (by which I take it that you mean "multiple methods of observation", since "survellance STILL requires a warrant) together add up to probable cause, they CANNOT justify further surveillance. Which, as I have already stated, requires a judicial warrant.

Re:So it ends

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Still, if you are walking in your home when your windows are open, I can see you with my own two eyes - just like any other man, be it a cop with a warrant or not. But if I want to track your cellphone, I have to either buy/steal this information from your operator (which is illegal), or use some complex equipment, that can be used only with this purpose (and I think that it is illegal too).

Even if I'm using some perfectly legal equipment, I have to tune it to your cellphone - so, instead of "looking through your window while walking nearby" it becomes "trying to watch at you and only you whenever you are", which is, IIRC, called stalking and, again, not so legal everywhere.

Re:So it ends

[Stirling Newberry]

TJ would not agree with you:

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson to W. Carmichael, 1788.

Re:So it ends

[Stirling Newberry]

Government presumes it is by the people and for the people. Not that it has of right the omniscience of a deity. Government is the trustee of the civic religion, not the object of its subservience.

Re:So it ends

[JaimeZX]

There's more than one Android app that does the same thing.

Re:So it ends

[metacell]

Should we expect privacy from survillance cameras pointed at the windows of our houses?

After all, physics dictates that our bodies reflect electromagnetic radiation, so if we don't want to be caught on tape, we shouldn't walk in front of windows when the light is on.

Re:So it ends

[Stickerboy]

...our reasonable expectation of privacy and the experiment of civil liberties. The sad thing is that we have lost a lot of them to "aid in fighting" un-winnable and/or lost wars.

No, We The People sold it all to get a few "freebies" from the likes of Facebook and Google, who specialize in monetizing what was once private personal information. You think Facebook hasn't already been working on a way to market continuous tracking of everyone as a Feature?

Re:So it ends

[pnutjam]

Yes, we the people need to establish our own right to privacy and clarify the 4th amendment for today's technology.

Separation of Business and Goverment.
Rights of people, not corporation
Right to Privacy

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

Really, so I create super secure technology, and .gov goes to BIG TELCO and demands they add "backdoor" for them.
(This is going on all the time. Having good/bad tech is not the point. So no, that's not my argument.)

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

Clarify my argument. It wasn't that privacy is necessary for cause of SSN, and security through obscurity.

My point was that privacy, while not explicity stated in the Constitution as a right/privilege, does in fact relate to the well being of the individual. And violations of privacy can in fact cause harm to an individual. And as such, there is justification to legal protect privacy.

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

That's a BS solution. Because eventually, such will be possible via technology you have no choice of.

I guess I should get rid of my car. Since I am required to have a license plate, and they can now track me. Oh, they're working on tracking by satellites. Guess I shouldn't go outside either.

Heck, did you hear, they're experimenting with reading people's minds. Granted the technology is in it's infancy but in 20, 40, 100 years from now. Guess Americans will have to STOP THINKING too!

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

"First they came for my neighbor, then they came for you, when they came for me there was no one left to speak up."

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

...or maybe you could accept the fact that you really aren't interesting enough to track.

Re:So it ends

[chill]

Actually, I was referring to the conversation you have when talking to someone, but can see where I was unclear. Thanks.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

And the court ruled that tracking a radio signal does not violate the forms of law.

Re:So it ends

[Cajun Hell]

Of course we won the Iraq war. We got rid of their WMD, didn't we? 'Mission Accomplished.'

No, we lost, because Iraq's Scud missiles wiped out the US' entire stegosaurus and dodo bird population. The only way to win, is to not play.

Re:So it ends

[Sloppy]

The laws of physics say that using a nondirectional antenna on a transmitter means that the signal goes EVERY direction,

The laws of mathematics say what pi is, but that doesn't mean you math/science guys will always get the last word. The people have spoken, so keep your precious reality to yourself. You're lucky Slashdot isn't paid for through the government, or else I'd say your instruction in Common Sense 102 was an infringement of my First Amendment rights!

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

What idiot talk show did you get that from?

Idiot talk show? Try reading the definition of the word, then think of the concepts that go in to being "Free". Defining "liberty" is not like defining "Zero" or "blue", it's more like trying to define "rational" or "Republic".

I have read the constitution numerous times. The wording chosen is wonderfully done and very intentional. Perhaps try studying a bit more rhetoric and you will see how deliberate and intelligent the terms used really are.

Contrary to how many people think, the founding fathers were not a bunch of boobs that wrote things in a way that would be open to interpretation. With that said, many words are conceptual and not singular. Those conceptual words are very fluid and not contradictory. You see the same from masters of rhetoric through history, starting with Plato's Republic.

A last point, do you think it's unintentional that we are founded as a Republic? Perhaps you should read, or re-read, Plato's Republic. Not only is it a blueprint for our Government, but it is the prodigy for rhetoric similar to what you read in our Constitution. They used to call being able to understand and write this way being "enlightened", though that has been lost for some time now in our corrupted system.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

My mistake. Your weird theories are entirely original. I have to compliment your imagination, though not your logic,

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

Melon ramen noodles are tasty too!

Re:So it ends

[PortHaven]

Hard to accept when you have government agencies declaring that a Ron Paul bumper sticker makes an individual interesting enough to track.

And what if I was a 3 armed man, how interesting I am, shouldn't play into my rights. What a moronic idea.

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

Not my logic? Yet you propose no response in two replies other than "you are wrong". I would return the complement, however lacking any substance such a feat is not going to be justified. If you argue from fallacy, at least have the decency to use something a bit more intelligent and less obvious than you have shown twice now.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

A three armed man might be able to hold enough guns to defend himself against this heinous oppression. A four armed man would have an even better chance.

You and I have only two arms on us. We cannot stop this thing.

Re:So it ends

[AmazingRuss]

MMMMMmmmmm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizziemabbott/6160451340/

Re:So it ends

[Obfuscant]

Should we expect privacy from survillance cameras pointed at the windows of our houses?

Well, let's think about this. Windows are made of glass, and glass transmits light. They are designed to allow bidirectional transmission, and to allow people inside to see out and outside to see in. So no, if you have a window in your house then you should expect that anyone who is outside can see in.

That is, unless you use this newfangled invention called a 'drape', or perhaps a more modern invention, a 'venetian blind'. You can also find one-way windows, I believe, or put such films over existing ones.

I believe the courts have already ruled on this: what is plainly visible from the street is not an invasion of privacy to see. If you want privacy, close the drapes.

Re:So it ends

[Obfuscant]

You're lucky Slashdot isn't paid for through the government, or else I'd say your instruction in Common Sense 102 was an infringement of my First Amendment rights!

Unfortunately, there is ample precedent that the First Amendment does not grant you unlimited access to the public airwaves, or the right to to ignore simple physics behind radio transmissions when using them. The FCC consistently busts pirate radio stations (you know, people who are trying to make use of their First Amendment rights w.r.t. the public airwaves without obtaining the required licenses), and they often use radio direction finding to identify the source before busting them.

The reality, however unprecious you find it, is that your radio signal from a cell phone goes every direction, and thus the claim that the LAW allows such transmissions to go only from the cellphone to the tower is just ridiculous. The reality is that it is possible to track a radio signal, even ones that you think ought to be untrackable.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

I hardly know where to start. You take a word and spin a lot of complicated theories about the secret intentions of the people who used them. You "evidence" is so subjective it's impossible to argue with.

I'll just say it one last time, and maybe you can respond without complicated references to Plato: the word "liberty" appears exactly 3 times in the U,S. Constitution. Not one of them uses the word you say it does.

Re:So it ends

[s.petry]

Contrary to your first fallacious sentence, there are no secrets or complicated theories. It is not a secret intention at all, it's very obvious. The word does not appear over and over because it only fits in certain circumstances. The preamble is probably the most important since the preamble explains the principle philosophy we are attached to as a Government and People (Society).

To your point: To imply as you did that Liberty does not include things like privacy is not logical nor is it reasonable, unless someone does not understand the use of the word Liberty. Twice now I have expressed that the word is not simple, and very intentionally used to convey a concept. You disagreed with everything I stated, so it appears that you believe this is not true.

Start by looking at the definition of the word Liberty as I stated. The definition is extremely complex, and requires knowledge of another word "Free". Why was "Liberty" chosen where it was and why did they not use the word "Free"? Because Liberty means more than "Free" is the most obvious answer. Notice that Liberty is assigned to a person, and not the Government.

I gave the Plato's Republic suggestion since you can see much of the rhetoric used in the writing of the constitution there, and in rather short stories easier to digest and analyze one at a time.

Re:So it ends

[redlemming]

James Madison specifically wrote the Bill of Rights as an open-ended document. That's why the 9th Amendment provides for rights "retained by the people" and the 10th Amendment provides for rights "reserved to the people". An extremely strong right to privacy would certainly be the sort of thing he intended to protect, thus the fact that the word "privacy" is not explicitly stated in the Constitution is irrelevant!

A major problem that we face as a society in getting these sorts of rights recognized is that legal professionals, both as individuals and as a class in society, have major ethical conflicts of interest in doing so. A scary legal system that infringes fundamental rights inherently creates a demand for people to hire legal professionals to protect them from the abuses of the legal system ...

In practice, ethical conflicts of interest all too often trump both oaths of office and oaths to uphold the law.

Re:So it ends

[ToddInSF]

Are you saying that merely encrypting a signal somehow hides the location of the signal ?

Uhm, no.

Re:So it ends

[metacell]

So there isn't any difference between looking through a window, and setting up a camera to film everything that's going on behind that window 24/7?

Re:So it ends

[Stirling Newberry]

The more society's power rests on circular arguments that tie up logic in knots, the more inevitable it is that people will exercise what Jefferson called "the natural right to revolution." When politics, law, discourse, and commerce all become tools of putting the boot down on those who have less by those who have more, the more likely it becomes that when change comes, it will be violent.

It seems that the present generation in power has forgotten history, and so, as the saying goes, is condemning society to repeat it.

Re:So it ends

[chill]

No, I'm saying it provides a layer of privacy expectation.

I didn't want to write paragraphs on radio direction finding and signal identification methods needed by a general observer, contrasting them with methods used by LEOs. They don't bother with that. They work with the telco to get cell tower signal data for the specific customer.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

Could you pause in your flow of passion long enough to explain how the argument is circular?

Re:So it ends

[Stirling Newberry]

Sorry, I don't argue with trolls, find someone else to annoy. ktb.

Re:So it ends

[fm6]

Sure, I'm the troll because I ask you to explain your argument. There's nothing trollish about going on and on about how evil people are without any facts to back it up.

Re:So it ends

[Obfuscant]

Well, let's think about that.

I can stand there, or hire someone to do so, 24/7. I can install a camera to do it for me. The main difference is cost.

Should how much something costs be the determining factor in whether something is ethical? If so, then rich people can do a lot of things ethically that poor people cannot, because a rich person can afford to do many things that poor ones cannot, including hiring people to look in a window 24/7.

Re:So it ends

[metacell]

Laws have to be practical. We can't outlaw taking a peek through other people's windows, since people would break the law by mistake all the time, and there are legitimate reasons to take a peek at someone's house. We can, however, make it illegal to set up a camera to film through someone's window, since that's not something people normally do, and the only reason to do it is to spy on the people in that house.

Rich people could of course hire someone to peek through their windows 24/7, if they really wanted to, but that's such an extreme and unusual situation, the law can probably disregard it, and if it becomes a problem anyway, it could be handled through other laws, such as stalking.

Another difference is that filming creates a permanent record that can, for example, be viewed over and over again, or be uploaded to the Internet, so it risks leading to more severe invasions of privacy.

Look at it this way...

[Kenja]

You're going around shouting at different people and then the police ask these people where they think the noise was coming from. There's not asking what was being yelled, just which direction the noise is coming from. I can see this falling into the range of non-private data, as much as I would like to say it's not.

Re:Look at it this way...

[Kenja]

You're going around shouting at different people and then the police ask these people where they think the noise was coming from. There's not asking what was being yelled, just which direction the noise is coming from. I can see this falling into the range of non-private data, as much as I would like to say it's not.

But that location data resides on third party servers - it's not shouted where all can hear it in a manner that humans could hear such as by voice. It's reasonable to expect that your personal data stored on such a server would require a warrant.

To keep with my analogy, the person who heard you and is being queried by the police as to your location can refuse without a warent. But in this case, the cell phone providers seem eager to hand over the information. Put another way, once you hand over your information to a third party without a contract protecting your privacy, they can hand it off to the police without your permission or a warent if they so choose. Thats why this decision applies to disposable phones and not regular ones.

Re:Look at it this way...

[avandesande]

The article does not say that explicitly- I don't really know much about cell protocols but there may be a way to do it just by looking at the signals.

Re:Look at it this way...

[CanHasDIY]

Thats why this decision applies to disposable phones and not regular ones.

Right, because as we all know, cellular carriers are well known for their respecting user privacy in the face of illegitimate requests from law enforcement... /sarc

Re:Look at it this way...

[cheekyjohnson]

Nice loophole, huh? The police don't even have to worry about that "privacy" nonsense anymore; they can just get private companies to reveal everything about you. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Re:Look at it this way...

[TheGratefulNet]

its the MO of the large governments in the US, for a few decades now. didn't you know that?

instead of THEM doing the dirty work, they outsource it. "hey, WE didn't break the law".

in a weird sociopathic way, they justify their incroachment of our liberties. "the end justifies the means" and all that.

not much new. just normal 'progress' toward state control over its serfs. seriously, nothing new; just some new awareness of how bold they are in their trampling of our rights.

Re:Look at it this way...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Well, if the goal of privacy law is to preserve people's expectations, then the two cases are different. People yelling expect to be heard. Non-technical people with a cell phone don't expect to be tracked like a bear with a radio collar.

Re:Look at it this way...

[houghi]

There is a HUGE difference. If they ask the people, they must be there in time. The memory of is not perfect and especially a long time after a specific moment people will not remember, unless there is a very specific reason for it.
And this is not just when there is a noise, it about being able to have a person following you all the time and keeping minute details of what you are doing, including your time at home.

I would say that there is a HUGE difference.

Remember the freedom you were defending by helping out Europe a few years back? Perhaps it is time to return the favour and kick out YOUR evil government. (Yeah, I am aware of Godwin)

Re:Look at it this way...

[Obfuscant]

Non-technical people with a cell phone don't expect to be tracked like a bear with a radio collar.

Drunks expect to be able to drive a car just as well as when they are sober. LSD users sometimes expect to be able to fly. Children expect a dollar under their pillow when they put a tooth there the night before. Gang bangers expect people from other parts of town won't dare come to their part. Mobsters expect a small business to pay protection fees to keep bad things from happening.

Just how many "expectations" should we codify into law, especially when those expectations counter both common sense and the laws of physics?

Transmit a radio wave, people can track it. Your expectations are irrelevant to that fact. Transmit a cellular radio wave, the cell company will track it just so they can provide you the service you are paying for. If you expect them not to, then who's the fool? Do you want more foolish laws like the ECPA?

Re:Look at it this way...

[Capt. Skinny]

Some do, apparently. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all

The reports also reveal a sometimes uneasy partnership with law enforcement agencies, with the carriers frequently rejecting demands that they considered legally questionable or unjustified. At least one carrier even referred some inappropriate requests to the F.B.I.

Re:Look at it this way...

[VortexCortex]

You're going around shouting at different people and then the police ask these people where they think the noise was coming from. There's not asking what was being yelled, just which direction the noise is coming from. I can see this falling into the range of non-private data, as much as I would like to say it's not.

No. Or else Google wouldn't be in hot water for accidentally collecting snipits of the data that people were shouting with their unencrypted WIFI. IIRC, they were only trying to figure out where which shouts were coming from too...

Re:Look at it this way...

[Stirling Newberry]

A drunk doesn't meet the test of a reasonable person.

Re:Look at it this way...

[DeadCatX2]

Even more egregious...while Google collected unencrypted data, cell phone communications are encrypted.

Re:Look at it this way...

[Obfuscant]

Nor does, IMNSHO, someone who holds a RADIO device in his hand who thinks nobody should be able to receieve his RADIO signals. But I do know many people who are quite reasonable when they are drunk.

Writs of Assistance

[rolfwind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

In general, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America in the 1760s, especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States. In the United Kingdom, general writs of assistance continued to be issued until 1819.[6]

General writs of assistance played an important role in the increasing tensions that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. In 1760, Great Britain began to enforce some of the provisions of the Navigation Acts by granting customs officers these writs. In New England, smuggling had become common. However, officers could not search a person's property without giving a reason. Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects. The colonists had several problems with these writs. They were permanent and even transferable: a writ holder could assign them to another. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. This put anyone who had such a writ above the law.

Idk, but between border control, the patriot act, and the drug wars, it seems to me that e have a whole lotta writs of assistance in this here "free" country.

Re:Writs of Assistance

[TheGratefulNet]

you are correct.

and how they do this is via 'boiling the frog' by slow cooking.

little by little, we are having our freedom stolen from us.

truly stolen, too; since its being taken by those with guns against our will. I call that theft. don't you??

Re:Writs of Assistance

[satanclause]

truly stolen, too; since its being taken by those with guns against our will. I call that theft. don't you??

If guns are involved, whether used or not, it's robbery - not just theft.

Reality...

[SuperKendall]

I don't get this persistent desire of people to ignore reality. If something can be done, it will be. Should it be? Possibly not, but again you are ignoring the REALITY.

Can someone track your cell phone when it is on? Yes. Therefore it will be done. If that bothers you, turn it off if you are going somewhere you do not want to be found, or burn phones more often...

Re:Reality...

[Relic of the Future]

"Can a SWAT team kick in your door in the middle of the night? Yes. Therefore it will be done. Stop complaining about the reality."

Re:Reality...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't get this persistent desire of people to ignore reality. If something can be done, it will be. Should it be? Possibly not, but again you are ignoring the REALITY.

Congratulations, you have just argued away the need for the government get a warrant in any situation at all.

Re:Reality...

[SuperKendall]

People ARE murdered every day. Does this surprise you?

If you do not like to be murdered, takes steps to reduce the possibility. Go out less, arm yourself, whatever.

But it's not about YOU, it's about the average...

Re:Reality...

[VortexCortex]

I don't get this persistent desire of people to ignore reality. If something can be done, it will be. Should it be? Possibly not, but again you are ignoring the REALITY.

Can someone track your cell phone when it is on? Yes. Therefore it will be done. If that bothers you, turn it off if you are going somewhere you do not want to be found, or burn phones more often...

We're not ignoring reality, If the government was just as transparent to us as they want us to be to them, then I don't think there would really be an issue. I didn't see you saying the same thing in the article about the UK threatening to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to get Julian Assange (just some remark about it being Clinton's fault). I do hope you'd apply the same logic here, the government is just ignoring the reality that the leaks exist. Right? That the governments go to such lengths to keep their private data private is a prime indicator that I should fight tooth and nail for my own privacy. It's the inequality of visibility AND power that's the problem.

Re:Reality...

[Stirling Newberry]

IR is traceable, if that bothers you, stop breathing.

Re:Reality...

[Stirling Newberry]

If being murdered bothers you, just commit suicide now.

Re:Reality...

[DeadCatX2]

You are just flat wrong.

No one - NO ONE - has a problem with the police tracking phones if they have a warrant.

You should look up Kyllo. Justice Scalia's opinion flat out states that even though the heat coming from a home can be detected with a thermal imaging camera from outside the private residence, it still constitutes a search and requires a warrant.

Surveying your home with an IR camera can be done. But it still requires a warrant.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[avandesande]

If you have a unique flashing blue light on your car and police notice that it shows up at different drug sites in a pattern, are they supposed to ignore it? What is different about the EM radiation from a cellphone other than you not being able to see it?

Re:Example please

[Relic of the Future]

25% of cellphones in use in this country are of the "disposable" (pre-paid) kind, and yes, you can buy them, with cash, in brick-and-mortar stores.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Hatta]

Moronic troll.

Disposable phones

[Penurious Penguin]

Something I think many users of "disposable" phones fail to realize amidst their presumed anonymity is the factor of unique patterns. For example, if an individual suspected of dealing drugs or any other crime has a phone, chances are that the outgoing and incoming calls fit a pattern unique to that user. Even if frequently disposing of old phones and buying new phones, it hardly requires more than two or three calls to uniquely identify someone. You see, it is so wildly unlikely that anyone else in the world would call Alice's mother, The Dealer, and Bob, that anyone doing so is probably Alice. So even if Alice runs out and gets a brand new phone after every big deal, it may only require calling Bob and one other previously called individual to put a unique flag on a user. Unless the whole network replace their phones in an organized coordinated manner, they at least potentially give away their identity. I don't think it ever required a warrant to do that, but I don't know. As for tracking people via cell-phone, this news is appreciated, but no more to me than an affirmation of the already assumed.

Re:Disposable phones

[Relic of the Future]

Two phones. Don't call mom with the burner. (Come on people, at least watch Breaking Bad!)

Re:Disposable phones

[Anonymous Coward]

This only works if you know who The Dealer, Alice's mom, and Bob are. If all of them continually replace their disposable phones, it is less trivial to do these types of searches.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[JohnFen]

You'd better be, because if not, then there is no real privacy for anyone ever.

The legal system doesn't know that he was doing anything illegal until after he's convicted of it. Up until then, he's presumed innocent, but accused of doing something illegal. It may seem like a fine distinction, but it's a critically important one.

To say that someone doesn't get their privacy rights because they're breaking the law is to say that cops get to decide someone's guilt or innocence -- which they don't get to do. Judges get to do that in a court of law. Under existing law, a judge can make this sort of determination during the investigatory phase: it's called "issuing a warrant".

Re:Example please

[JohnFen]

Tracfone, available at almost every supermarket I set foot in.

From TFA:

[CanHasDIY]

"Perhaps the most important single statement in the ruling refers to the fact that there is no Fourth Amendment violation in use of these techniques because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought phone--even one that is pay-as-you-go," [said Nick Selby, managing director of TRM Partners]

Emphasis mine; let's apply that "logic" to other "voluntary" purchases, and see if it passes the smell test...

there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought house
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought automobile
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought pair of pants

Yup, smells like bullshit to me.

Re:From TFA:

[Spy Handler]

well yes it's bullshit, but it was spouted by some guy named Nick Selby... it's not what the judge said.

The judge compared it to police finding a suspect's location by using a dog to track his scent, which they are allowed to do.

Re:From TFA:

[CanHasDIY]

well yes it's bullshit, but it was spouted by some guy named Nick Selby... it's not what the judge said.

The judge compared it to police finding a suspect's location by using a dog to track his scent, which they are allowed to do.

Here is the explanation the judge gave regarding tracking with dogs:

"Otherwise, dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent."

Unless being suspected of a crime now equates to conviction + escape from custody, that little anecdote is utter bullshit.

I would say I'm shocked that a judge would exhibit such a blatantly wrong understanding of the law, but these days, I would find it more surprising if he didn't.

Re:From TFA:

[Hatta]

I'm pretty sure the police can track your location while you're using your house. They don't even need a warrant.

Re:From TFA:

[ZombieBraintrust]

Well there isn't a reasonble expectatation of privacy in voluntary use of a voluntary house or automobile. The goverment tracks who owns the ownership of both. If they suppect you of commiting a crime the dectective will look up you address and plate numbers. No warrent needed. Warrents are only needed to search your house or car. They can come by and stare at your house or follow your car without a warrent.

Re:From TFA:

[Stirling Newberry]

This troll brought to you by Anonymous Cowards for Total Awareness Surveillance Society.

Re:From TFA:

[CanHasDIY]

Think you're funny, don'tcha?

Yea, me too. Good one.

Sounds reasonable.

[John Hasler]

It's a radio transmitter, dammit! When you walk around with an operating radio transmitter spraying rf in all directions the people it is bouncing off of have a right to absorb some of it and do with it as they wish. That includes the cops. If you want no one to know where you are don't broadcast your location.

Re:Sounds reasonable.

[Relic of the Future]

It's illegal for the cops to use an IR camera to observe your house, without a search warrant. "But your body is an infrared transmitter, dammit! When you walk around spraying ir in all directions the people it is bouncing off of have a right to absorb some of it and do with it as they wish! That includes the cops." No, no they do not.

Re:Sounds reasonable.

[gatfirls]

Except that's not at all how they track them, if they did I would say go for it. They are getting the data from private networks they shouldn't have open access to but they do because of e911 stuff. There's a lot more at stake here than following some drug dealer. There are bad cops (and entire corrupt departments) out there and they shouldn't be able to get this kind of information without a good cause (hence the whole 4th amendment thing). Say some crazed cop wants to find his ex in hiding to beat on, no warrant needed here's all the information you need.

Re:Sounds reasonable.

[WaffleMonster]

It's a radio transmitter, dammit! When you walk around with an operating radio transmitter spraying rf in all directions the people it is bouncing off of have a right to absorb some of it and do with it as they wish. That includes the cops. If you want no one to know where you are don't broadcast your location.

Since when is it legal for anyone to do with it as they wish with private communications between individuals? If I decode the signal from your phone I can do whatever I want with it? Really?

This is not even true for unlicensed and ameature frequencies. You do not even have the right to do whatever the hell you want with the contents of conversation between two parties you overhear even if that conversation is "in the clear".

Re:Sounds reasonable.

[GigaBurglar]

Yes but the difference, in this case, is having access to the network providers systems to attain such information. It's not just a case of picking up loose RF signals - it has to be coordinated and triangulated. That alone should warrant official procedures. In a couple of years time, once people are comfortable with warrant-less tracking, it won't be to unreasonable to assume that other tracking methods won't require such procedures; maybe even some data can be legally permitted. You can't do a full frontal assault in support for anything the public doesn't want - you have to dismantle it piece by piece. The boiling frog analogy once again applies here.

Re:Sounds reasonable.

[Stirling Newberry]

It's air damnit, it goes all over the world, when you breath it you should know that everyone has a right to know everything about you. People these days with their sense of entitlement. Why can't they be happy with endless images of bombs, boobs, and beer like the other proles.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[CanHasDIY]

Troll or moron?

There's a difference?

Living

[PortHaven]

Living, is justification for monitoring, detention, seizure of assets. If you refuse to accept this, you have the right to cease living.
- .gov

And sadly we tolerate it, because what else are we going to do. Most Americans were sadly to stupid to vote for Ron Paul.

Re:Living

[Anonymous Coward]

>Living, is justification for monitoring, detention, seizure of assets. If you refuse to accept this, you have the right to cease living.

Since when? The right to die by your own choice (suicide) has always been illegal.

Re:Living

[PortHaven]

Not in Japan...

Re:Living

[not flu]

Which is laughable. What are they going to do, put you in jail after you kill yourself?

Re:Living

[Stirling Newberry]

The ones who know what his record is are too smart to vote for him.

Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'

So, anything made of reasonably ordinary matter at a temperature greater than zero Kelvins doesn't enjoy fourth amendment protection? Am I going to have to start using neutrinos as drug mules?

Re:Makes Sense

[PortHaven]

So by that logic, they have right to listen into my conversation on my phone since it's broadcasting. Heck, talking in the privacy of my home is broadcasting sound waves.

Oh, hell, I send out alpha waves too. Guess in a few years it'll be legit to listen in on my thoughts when the technologies allows.

Re:Example please

[Mike Buddha]

Fry's has pre-paid phones on Verizon for sale for $15.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[flaming error]

"What is different about the EM radiation" is that police, "not being able to see it", won't "notice that it shows up at different drug sites in a pattern"

inconsistent rulings

[magarity]

So how does this equate to the ruling against the police who were using an infrared camera to find the heat given off by sun lamps in home marijuana growers' setups? In that, the judge ruled they DID have an expectation of privacy when emitting in the eletromagnetic spectrum.

Re:inconsistent rulings

[Qzukk]

In that one, the Supreme Court ruled that because infrared cameras aren't in widespread public use, people don't expect them to be used.

In this one, the court is saying "Well, anyone can call up the phone company and pretend to be a cop without having to produce any kind of papers or paper trail and find out where you are"

Re:inconsistent rulings

[king neckbeard]

I would think that cell phone providers are a great deal rarer than IR cameras.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[avandesande]

So if the Coast Guard triangulates on the radio of a drug running boat to find it they shouldn't do this either?
If you emit radiation you should assume it is public.

Hmmm... it'll probably get overturned

[sirwired]

This decision seems incompatible with the GPS tracking decision, which said a warrant was required for GPS tracking. IIRC, the GPS decision didn't key off the fact that the cops had to plant a transmitter, they based the decision off the idea that it was really creepy. This seems to be an identical level of creepiness.

Re:What is the point roxy

[Anonymous Coward]

Police cars are usually broadcasting radio signals as well. Is it OK if I create an app that shows the real-time position of any police vehicles that are identified? Should be. Fairly easy to overlay on a google map. It is no different than seeing one drive down the street and then telling someone. We could make a web version that serves from another country to protect it from a take down. I'm gonna put this up over on kickstarter.

smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HBO

[neurocutie]

There *is* a certain logic to this ruling. Supposing I communicated to my friends with smoke signals, or a searchlight in the sky (Bat signal?), would I expect privacy for my broadcasting these "signals"? A cell phone does the same thing.

OTOH, the same could be said of radio signals, TV broadcasts, HBO via satellite, etc. These are also broadcast whose raw signals are available for ANYONE to pick up. Yet it is deemed illegal to decode these radio signals, or listen in on cell phone conversations.

These two notions are contradictory to me. Either broadcasted energy/information has NO expectation of privacy or other limitations that prohibit listening, decoding, etc. *or* broadcasted signals of whatever type *do* represent a PRIVATE, non-public channel of information that has an expectation of privacy. Can't be both...

Exactly

[SuperKendall]

"Can a SWAT team kick in your door in the middle of the night? Yes. Therefore it will be done. Stop complaining about the reality."

That is exactly right. If you don't want it to be so, start thinking about disbanding SWAT teams or not allowing them to do B&E at all.

Why are people assembling basically military police teams and then astonished when they act like military teams?

Re:Exactly

[Stirling Newberry]

If SWAT Teams can be formed, they will be, that's the reality.

You really do need to catch up with the latest philosophical discussions this guy Plato is writing, really cutting edge stuff I promise you. The Republic alone is great for the discussion over what justice is, and how it can not simply be the interest of the powerful to do well by its friends and harm its enemies.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[fm6]

Because everybody has rights, or nobody has rights. If the police are allowed to use evidence they've gathered illegally, then there's nothing to prevent them from simply spying on everybody.

Two big differences

[pavon]

1) The phone wasn't broadcasting data that the police happened to notice. They had the phone company send the phone commands querying it for it's precise precision (this is a feature that is required by law to be in phones for the purpose of e911). So this was an active search, not a happenstance observation.

2) Because this isn't a signal that just anyone can monitor, but rather one that requires explicit cooperation of the phone company to generate and access, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that signal.

Those two facts essentially are the definition of when a search that requires a warrant.

Re:Two big differences

[Githaron]

Someone mod this up.

Re:Two big differences

[flaming error]

I'm all for consistency, but sometimes "case law" seems little more than convenient cover to sneak away from the Constitution by degrees. If such case law as you suggest exists, it's miles away from anything a Founding Father intended.

Not over yet

[jxander]

I can't image the 6th Circuit will have the final word on this. Wouldn't be surprised to see this make it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Given the ubiquity of cell phones in this country, and TFAs assertion that roughly 25% of people are on prepaid.... I'd put a conservative guess around 40-50 million people in the US who just lost a good chuck of their 4th Amendment Rights with this ruling.

Re:Not over yet

[dkf]

Given the ubiquity of cell phones in this country, and TFAs assertion that roughly 25% of people are on prepaid.... I'd put a conservative guess around 40-50 million people in the US who just lost a good chuck of their 4th Amendment Rights with this ruling.

Technically, that's only true when they're in the area covered by the 6th Circuit. The argument made only potentially has persuasive power in the rest of the US, not binding power. The real question is whether some clever legal researcher can find a decision by another Circuit that is directly in conflict; if they can, that pretty much forces the Supremes to hear the case.

Background

[PopeRatzo]

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is okay for police to track your cellphone signal without a warrant.

In case you're wondering, the Sixth Court of Appeals is overwhelmingly Republican. Of the thirty justices on the Sixth Circuit, twenty were appointed by Republican presidents (mostly Nixon and G W Bush). Only two were appointed by President Obama.

Re:Background

[PopeRatzo]

I'm sorry, inside the parentheses it should have read, "mostly Reagan and G W Bush".

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Rinikusu]

Good question. Why is it illegal for the police to use IR to view through the walls of a private residence without a warrant? You can't see those, either, but obviously the law does make it an issue...

Re:Your whereabouts are _not_ public domain

[Spy Handler]

It's not, and we all have an expectation of privacy regarding our cells.

Who's we? I never had any such illusions, cos I know how a cellphone works. But then, I have an IQ over 80 and I took high school physics... which I guess is more than you can say about a lot of people babbling on their "cells".

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[mdfst13]

It wasn't the EM radiation that they were tracking. The police got a court order for the cell phone carrier to send them data on the location of the cell phone.

The confusing thing is how they could have gotten a court order without a warrant. If they had enough for a court order, how didn't they have enough for a warrant justifying the data collection implicit in the court order? The bizarreness of the US legal system.

More discussion of this on a legal site: http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/14/sixth-circuit-rules-that-pinging-a-cell-phone-to-determine-its-location-is-not-a-fourth-amendment-search/?ModPagespeed=off

Note that to see the comments, you may have to whitelist volokh.com and disqus.com in your Javascript disabler.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Fjandr]

By extension, if the police are allowed to use illegally-gathered evidence there is no protection from manufactured evidence. At that point, a bad guy is defined as anyone the police say is a bad guy. Anyone who believes the latter is a good thing needs to be removed from the gene pool.

On the other hand when Google does it...

[laci]

On the other hand Google gets into hot waters for recording the signals sent from a voluntarily bought and voluntarily used wifi router...

TracFone conspiracy

[fleebait]

Ever wonder why it's called a TracFone?

Now you know!!

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Githaron]

Trolls are all specific type of moron.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Githaron]

Stupid auto correct. Trolls are a specific type of moron.

Re:So what?

[king neckbeard]

Bottom line is who cares?

People who have studied history. When governments don't have to follow rules, you get tyranny. A better thing to say BIG DEAL about is the fact that this guy was selling drugs. Who cares that he's selling drugs? That's between him and his clients.

Just Prepaid?

[mk1004]

Nothing in the article seems to indicate why prepaid phones would be any different than the others. Apparently in this case the suspect was using a prepaid phone, but it seems that any phone that has GPS tracking enabled could be tracked by the government legally, based upon the court's decision.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[geekoid]

Yes, the auto correct is stupid~

Re:What is the point roxy

[WaffleMonster]

Police cars are usually broadcasting radio signals as well. Is it OK if I create an app that shows the real-time position of any police vehicles that are identified? Should be. Fairly easy to overlay on a google map. It is no different than seeing one drive down the street and then telling someone. We could make a web version that serves from another country to protect it from a take down. I'm gonna put this up over on kickstarter.

This is where the police break out their favorite set of overly broad catch all laws and sentance you for interfering with an officer or some such nonsense. The same shit used to harass those who would flash their lights to warn of an oncoming speed trap.

There have already been apps like this pulled from the Apple appstore and they were just crowd sourced by eyeballs in the visible spectrum.

Re:What is the point roxy

[BigSlowTarget]

Don't bother. Kickstarter will pull it before you can even boast about it. Do you think they are going to let that gravy train mess with the law one bit?

You mistake every case for possible cases

[SuperKendall]

Congratulations, you have just argued away the need for the government get a warrant in any situation at all.

All I am saying is that people should be less surprised than they are when things that are obviously quite possible happen.

Again, as I stated it's not necessarily what SHOULD happen. But when you arrange systems to make something possible and easy, then try to layer controls on and prevent it - well don't be too surprised when the layers of controls fail at times.

Again to bring this back on topic, you really never thought police would track you by your cell phone even if they are not supposed to? I'm going to have to call you an idiot.

Re:You mistake every case for possible cases

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

All I am saying is that people should be less surprised than they are when things that are obviously quite possible happen.

No one is surprised about the technical details - that is a total canard. We are outraged that basic constitutional principles are so easily discarded by the courts.

Free-riding on Wifi networks

[thespeech]

If the mere status of a cellphone being on and broadcasting implicitly gives permission to police to track it, then if an unsecured Wifi network is broadcasting - where it's set to automatically let anyone in - I suppose it no longer counts as a crime to use it?

Re:Free-riding on Wifi networks

[BradleyUffner]

If the mere status of a cellphone being on and broadcasting implicitly gives permission to police to track it, then if an unsecured Wifi network is broadcasting - where it's set to automatically let anyone in - I suppose it no longer counts as a crime to use it?

Receiving the signal from the APis one thing, transmitting back to it is another.

Re:Example please

[Cosgrach]

Aren't you legally required to provide user information (Name, address, etc) for any 'prepaid' phone. I believe that it is meant to cut down on the use of anonymous phones used for crimes. It used to be that registration was not required.

chain of logic

[currently_awake]

Can I track a suspected drug dealer by his cell phone? Can I track the police by their cellphones? Can I track members of congress by their cellphones? Can I track the president of the USA by his cellphone? Now tell me where the line is.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[flaming error]

1) Your question doesn't follow from my comment. You're just moving the goal post.

2) The Coast Guard is military, and they are guarding our borders. Different context entirely.

Re:I would argue

[BradleyUffner]

If a phone gives off a signal and they want to fox hunt it themselves, great, but if they're asking a private company for private data, that's not the same thing.

Once you hand your data off to a 3rd party, that 3rd party is free to do whatever they want with the data, including handing it over to the cops or selling it to the highest bidder. Unless you have some sort of contractual agreement with the 3rd party saying they can't do that.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[fm6]

Your logic escapes me. If the cops choose to manufacture evidence, it can be "gathered" by legal search or not. The only protect against bogus evidence is a fair trial, where the defendant has the right to debunk the evidence against them.

Re:Example please

[Lehk228]

they might ask for it, i have never heard of it being validated in any meaningful way

Is this what you really want?

[Harkin]

Here's the deal. It's federally legal to receive on any band. IE I can receive on military bands, police bands, what ever band I want. It's only transmission that is regulated. As a side note, the radar detector mess is state level not federal and even then quite questionable. Keeping that in mind, if you are going to carry around a device which emits a unique signal that can be triangulated using a couple of USRP's with some cheap GPS units to get receiver location and timing â" expect to be triangulated. Hell, such a system could be built using a couple DTV tuners and the RTL-SDR module which can handle GPS AND Cell phone bands and they cost $20 a pop. Admittedly the bandwidth is narrow but its not the data thats interesting, just the signal.

It is entirely 100% legal for law enforcement to track your cellphone without a warrant if they are not using the carrier (not signal) to do it. The implications of making this illegal would be far worse then marginal protections it would grant.Here's the deal. It's federally legal to recieve

scary

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I find this word to be the most terrifying part of the article:
" certainly the police can track the signal"

It's a very convicted word to use. Like in this guy's mind there is no possible conceivable reality that exists anywhere in which the police wouldn't be able to track something. It's just a few steps closer to getting us from:
"the police can't track the signal"
to:
"certainly the police can search your house without a warrant"
etc... I'm sure it doesn't go on forever like that, but I'd like the end of the list to be closer to police not doing stuff...

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[deimtee]

No, the autocorrect is a troll.

Off phones

[DrYak]

Phone as old and simple as feature phone, had additional low-power CPU which could be working while the power was switched off.
This was extensively used to allow for a few house keeping function (like keeping time, and a few other stuff), and also for the phone to be able to power-on and sound alarms and calendar notifications (very useful, so you don't need to keep the phone on the whole night, just to get a wake-up alarm in the morning).

From that point on, it's not implausible to imagine a similar very low-power chip in modern smartphone, that could listen from time to time for incoming radio signals (and not emit much unless asked to). This won't drain the battery much, and allows a few feature: both compliance with law enforcement and possibility for remote-kill switch or remote recovery of stolen phone for end-users.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Stirling Newberry]

There are smart trolls and polite morons.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Stirling Newberry]

Because people don't see radio waves. We are, in general, limited to seeing a small proportion of the E-M spectrum, and sensing a slightly larger band to either side.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Stirling Newberry]

Once again showing the way to win every argument on the internet is just to be a Nazi. No one can call you on it by per Godwin.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Stirling Newberry]

Actually guilt or innocence is a matter of fact for a jury to decide in all but the most modest of cases, unless that right is waived.

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[Stirling Newberry]

Violates presumption of human senses. Next legal fallacy.

Re:I would argue

[Stirling Newberry]

"For any reason, or no reason at all."

Re:So it begins...to RFTA!

[AttyBobDobalina]

Did anyone actually read the ruling? The police got warrants from a judge for every step of this surveillance of these suspected drug runners. Please stop with the knee-jerk cynicism. This is no different than what the police have been empowered to do for years. Nothing to see here.

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[JohnFen]

Good point. IIRC, that's true for felonies, but not for misdemeanors. I tend to forget that because in many (most?) cases, the right to a jury trial is waived.

Re:So what?

[Travelsonic]

Who cares? I care, people who believe in the notion that not everything is everybody's business care. Privacy matters to us, if you don't understand that, that's your thing, don't make it our problem.

Appeal bad analysis of GPS mechanism and pinging

[freality]

Judge John Rogers, in his ruling, says multiple times that the phone was emanating information that the authorities tracked, therefore no invasion of privacy. He compares it to the scent a dog uses to follow someone, or the color of a car, or the numbers on a license plate, or the location of a car when it is on a public road.

"The government used data emanating from Melvin Skinner’s pay-as-you-go cell phone to determine its real-time location." (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0262p-06.pdf, p2, par1)

Rogers says the information the phone was emanating was just a "proxy" to this other publicly visible information. It's not clear what this "proxy" status is for the phone, but more importantly, the GPS in the phone could not have been emanating position information because that's not how client stations work in GPS. The satellites in the sky emanate position information, and the ground units just receive this and triangulate position from it. Otherwise, it would be a terrible technology for the military to use, as they would be easily located!

The judgement acknowledges that "ping" data had to be accessed from phone company, and that "pinging" the phone is an activity engaged in by the DEA agents on the suspect's phone, but somehow sticks with the emanating logic: "a federal magistrate judge, on July 12, 2006, authoriz[ed] the phone company to release subscriber information, cell site information, GPS real-time location, and “ping” data for the 6447 phone in order to learn Big Foot’s location while he was en route to deliver the drugs." (p4, par1)

(By pining the first phone and realizing it was at Big Foot's home, and not on the road with him, the DEA agents got another "authorization" for the release of the same data for a second "6820" phone.)

"By continuously “pinging” the 6820 phone, authorities learned that Big Foot left Tucson, Arizona on Friday, July 14, 2006, and was traveling on Interstate 40 across Texas. At no point did agents follow the vehicle or conduct any type of visual surveillance. At around 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, July 16, 2006, the GPS indicated that the 6820 phone had stopped somewhere near Abilene, Texas." (p4, par3)

That's where they moved in, did a K-9 walk-around of the RV, and then arrested him.

In the judgement about the 4th Amendment violation:

"If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal."

Of course, GPS clients like the suspect's phone do not actually give of a position signal, which is why they had to ping it. Rogers' logic is most carefully stated in the following, and so perhaps this could be the grounds for a new appeal:

"This case is different from the recent Supreme Court decision in United States
v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). That case involved the secret placement of a tracking
device on the defendant’s car, id. at 948, and the Court’s opinion explicitly relied on the
trespassory nature of the police action. Id. at 949. Although Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence includes an assessment of the defendant’s reasonable expectation of
privacy, that “d[oes] not erode the principle ‘that, when the Government does engage in
physical intrusion of a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information, that
intrusion may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. at 951 (quoting
Knotts, 460 U.S. at 286 (Brennan, J., concurring)). No such physical intrusion occurred
in Skinner’s case. Skinner himself obtained the cell phone for the purpose of
communication, and that phone included the GPS technology used to track the phone’s
whereabouts. The majority in Jones based its decision on the fact that the police had to
“physically occup[y] private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”
132 S. Ct. at 949. That did not occur in this case." (p10, par2)

Th

Lesson learned discard your disposable more often!

[madhi19]

For a criminal what the point of getting a disposable phone if you keep it long enough for the cops to learn your number? Seriously folks the rules of clandestine operation are simple incoming call goes to one phone outgoing from another! You switch them off when not in use and you discard them often! And pay phone are really useful to muddy the water even more. Also if you keep nothing in them you don't leave any data to be seized by anyone!

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[avandesande]

It sounds like it boils down to this- they don't know who the owner of the phone is, but it has been linked to an illegal use. Does it require a warrant to locate this phone?

The Wire

[ahow628]

The Wire has officially been deprecated.

You're not interesting enough...

[Safety Cap]

...until you are.

And by "interesting enough," I mean

• * A member of a particular religion
• * A member of a particular ethnicity
• * A member of a particular social class
• * A member of a particular economic class
• * A member of a particular political party/club/group
• * A member of a particular organization (professional or not) like /.

etc.

See what I did there?

You'd be surprised

[Safety Cap]

...but back in 2006, the FBI had the capability to turn a cell phone that was "off" into a remote listening device:

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

[snip]

The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call."

Remember, that was 6 years ago. Those civil rights you thought you had? Hope you enjoyed them at the time.

20 years of downtime for weed ?

[KingBenny]

i'm not up to speed but can't you get it 'for medical purposes' up to the point of writers block in a lot of states already ?
sorry if off-topic but that just stung my eye there. I suppose they were already on to him or else he didnt have the habit of ditching his phone between every run. I don't know what a pound of grass goes for overthere but i'm sure you can afford a new cell on it. Not taking sides, the sentence is way over the top imo. I'd like to know a little more on how they dug him out in the first place anyway. I can see how this is a concern if police can just track anyone around for no reason at all. Maybe someone needs to cash in on the need for tinfoil-lined cellphone holders.
From what i read they were trying to follow him already. Then they used the signal? It means they know what signal was his already? how ?
m a bit clueless here

Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter?

[Fjandr]

Due process involves a lot of steps which, whether by design or coincidence, create a trail of verifiability for evidence. Once that process is breached, there is much less basis upon which manufactured evidence can be debunked. When the method by which the evidence is gathered is no longer a point upon which the entire trial can hinge, the risk/reward ratio for the prosecution skews drastically should someone decide to introduce manufactured evidence somewhere.

If you don't have to worry that evidence will be tossed out for being obtained illegally, a great number of doors open for setting someone up.

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[fm6]

If human senses are required, then bloodhounds and sniffer dogs are unconstitutional.

You might try actually reading the ruling before attacking it.

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[Stirling Newberry]

Read Kyllo, and take your meds, you are having the psychic supreme court justice on the internet delusions again.

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[fm6]

Circular Logic!

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[Stirling Newberry]

I'm pleased that you continue to uphold the fine reputation of the authors of video cassette recorders everywhere.

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[fm6]

Troll!

Re:smoke signals, searchlights and satellite TV/HB

[fm6]

I do admire your ability to dream up irrelevant responses and insults. Perhaps I could argue with you more effectively if you would share your own meds?

Kylo was about cops spying on the defendant's activities in private. In this case, the cops are simply following the guy.