Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
...To fit the drugs in his phone. Or he had an 80's brick phone?
The first?
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
...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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance
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.
"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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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".
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
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.
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).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Yes, because a special detector violates the reasonable expectation of privacy clause.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
(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...