Slashdot Mirror
DOJ: We Don't Need a Warrant To Track You
GovTechGuy writes "The Department of Justice maintains it does not need a warrant to track an individual using location data captured from their cellphone. 'Cellphone location records are currently lumped under Title 1 and Title 2 of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (PL 99-508), which cover stored communications and call details. Accessing those types of information typically requires only a court order, rather than a warrant, as is required for the contents of a phone call or digital message under Title 3.' That has prompted Maine and Montana to pass laws banning warrantless cellphone tracking; unfortunately, Congress doesn't appear close to doing the same."
Ones that say that yes they do need a warrant. Meh, who am I kidding these days...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
But beyond a little moaning before the TV cameras they're thick as thieves behind closed doors and we can just about forget them rolling this one back or reigning it in.
So, it's not Bush or Obama, but Ronnie we can thank for this.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When you call 911 with cardiac symptoms and then drop off the call, it's useful information.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
When you call 911 with cardiac symptoms and then drop off the call, it's useful information.
You'd be surprised. I called 911 in Orange County a month ago and the first question I get is "Where are you?" Hmmph.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When you call 911 with cardiac symptoms and then drop off the call, it's useful information.
To the 911 operators.
But that doesn't answer his question: Why does Verizon store his info, and for much, much longer than what would be reasonably required for emergency response purposes?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
When you call 911 with cardiac symptoms and then drop off the call, it's useful information.
But how many of my calls are to 911?
If there were really for helping 911 support, it need only track 911 calls
Soo... since it's pretty well established at this point that the DOJ does not respect the authority of the US Constitution, it would stand to reason that We, the People, should as a matter of principle and duty refuse to respect the authority of the DOJ, correct?
Bullshit like this is why I feel an irresistible urge to pimp-slap someone every time I hear the Constitution referred to as "a living document."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's not like 911 calls cant be handled by a different procedure. And they should be. But no one needs a record of where I was when I called my son, and where he was.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
If they do not want to obey the laws, then neither shall I.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Except one time I called 911 while a crazy man tried to break the window of my car and the dispatcher told me she couldn't do anything, nor could even route me to the correct dispatcher until I told her exactly what intersection I was at... but I didn't know... so she offered to stay on the phone with me until we found out...
Which is useless if the guy had busted out a gun or a tire iron and actually succeeded in breaking into the car....
Dear DOJ:
And WE don't need a warrant to vote for the first presidential candidate who promises to rock your world and make sure your out of control ass gets curbed, and to prosecute everyone who failed to honor their pledge to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. In fact maybe the NSA doesn't even need to exist. We won WW2 without you.
Sincerely,
voting citizens who have a clue and a care
A warrant is a court order, yes, but a court order is not necessarily a warrant. Warrants generally have a lot stricter rules on when and how they are issued. Specifically, a search warrant requires probable cause. A court order does not.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I wonder how the government would feel if someone were to put up a website that gives real-time information about the location of members of congress, based on cell-phone data? Surely that wouldn't make them feel a bit uneasy, even if there were no publicly-ill intentions, right?
I'm so glad we have a two party system where one party is so very obviously good and virtuous and the other is evil for all to see. We should keep voting blindly along party lines based on the rhetoric these people speak rather than looking at their actions.
I must excuse myself, the Two Minute Hate is about to begin.
Having been a cellular customer support person is is very useful when dealing with disputed roaming charges. It is much harder to deny a call when there is proof one is roaming. It also works both ways as there are certain areas that have known roaming issues and it is much easier to justify a credit if there is proof of the location.
Another reason is that the location information has to be stored somewhere before it is forwarded to the 911 system. As for storing it too long, that would require a process to wipe information after a certain time. Those processes probably don't exist yet.
Congress? Do something? I love the way they created meaningful gun control legislation after the Newtown shootings. And the whole sequestration fiasco. But don't get me wrong - they are the best legislative body that money can buy.
Unless you had a GPS enabled phone with GPS on or are in contact with at least three cell towers in the right spatial distribution they can not accurately locate you.
Hitler and the KGB only WISH they had balls this big...
... and GPS has nothing to do with this. Phones do not require GPS receivers, GPS receivers need not be on and, in any case, a GPS receiver does not transmit your location. An originally military locating system that broadcast your location would be a supremely stupid thing.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
I'm not sure it is possible anymore. Those fucks just obtained right to jail citizens for indefinite time without court order (NDAA injunction has been struck down by Obama's cronies in 13 circuit, and good lock with SCOTUS). US of A 2013 reminds me Germany 1936. Scary times ahead...
it's useful for finding missing people and for solving murders/manslaughters(vehicular).
of course, then they would have warrant for that. note that it never seems to be used on any reality cop shows from usa for that... but that's what the info is usually used for.
though, it's always surprising that they still manage to have a major gang and narcotics dealing problems even if they could according to their own reading of the law datamine the shit out of the networks - and yes it would get you hotspots, it would give you regions(block level) where crackheads go buy their crack from and who brings in the shipments from where. having separate phones doesn't help, you would need to never keep them on at same time and their buyers sure don't do the two phone never on in the same cell dance, nobody does. all the surveillance and for shit all nothing except special cases when they feel like it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Thanks for trolling. They can (and do) track you based on triangulation to cell towers. GPS is not needed.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
How does this not violate the precedent set by US v Jones?
Wrong. A President instituted the NSA on his own. A President could abolish the NSA on his own.
If your reasoning includes the word "lumped," you might want to re-think it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
... and GPS has nothing to do with this. Phones do not require GPS receivers, GPS receivers need not be on and, in any case, a GPS receiver does not transmit your location. An originally military locating system that broadcast your location would be a supremely stupid thing.
If your phone has GPS that information is available, particularly on a 911 call. Amazing how fast they can track down someone with a newer phone these days, particularly when the user thought they had that function disabled. Only for the internet is it politely asking for permission to share your location.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"I find your rationale disturbing."
-- Darth Vader's good twin
Since governments in general disregard laws with impunity, what difference can it possibly make to pass laws requiring warrants? They will do what they are going to do anyway. The existence of a law will not change this behaviour. The powerful are not constrained by laws, only the weak.
I'm not sure it is possible anymore. Those fucks just obtained right to jail citizens for indefinite time without court order (NDAA injunction has been struck down by Obama's cronies in 13 circuit, and good lock with SCOTUS). US of A 2013 reminds me Germany 1936. Scary times ahead...
Which is why it's more important now than ever before in our national history to honor and respect each other's 2nd Amendment rights.
The soapbox, ballot box, and jury box have been compromised.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A President instituted the NSA on his own. A President could abolish the NSA on his own.
A President could also ride a horse to victory in the Kentucky Derby....that doesn't mean a President is LIKELY to do so, though.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I know, it's crazy. It's almost as if the point of the war on drugs isn't actually to stop the drug trade at all! But that's crazy! Instead we should spend a few billion more on militarized police, helicopters, drones, and prisons.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You are looking at it ass-backwards. Find an honest man with core principles who recognizes the NSA should be abolished, and is otherwise well qualified to be President, and help see him through to nomination and election. If you need a third party, add that to the list of things to do.
Nothing worth doing is easy.
Does a court order require anything other than asking for one?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
http://rt.com/usa/aclu-license-plate-surveillance-216/
Each tower only can report that it "saw" your phone at a particular time and with whatever signal strength. If a tower is saturated, it doesn't have anything. If there are only one or two towers that "see" your phone, they can't accurately triangulate (triangulation needs three fixes). Signal strength can vary a lot depending on intervening ground and other obstacles so two towers ony define an area where you might be (or might have been). Finally, your phone data is mixed in with the gigabytes of data from all of the other phone users whose phones connected to a particular tower and your data has to be extracted and this has to be done for ANY cell tower that might have connected to your phone.
So that's as easy and accurate as tapping into "my location is lat xyz, lon abc, elevation nnn"?
Your phone figuring out where it is is a whole different problem from someone who doesn't know where you are trying to find you or track your movements based on which cell towers your phone "sees." Finally, just like with GPS, don't turn on an app that does something like report your location. Typically, the phone won't perform geolocation unless there is something for it to do with the location data. The phone software only wants a cell tower to talk to. If there is more than one, so much the better but that's all the phone needs to operate as a phone.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Is it useful a month later? In the vast majority of cases, I'd say "fuck no." Only if you've been kidnapped or something, in which case by a month or so authorities will already have been notified much in advance, and the records would still be there for the FBI to notify the cell phone service provider to save data for that one account. I'd say there is NO GOOD REASON for them to be storing tracking data for more than a month and a half. None at all.
I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for the FISA court, or for the jackoffs on the Supreme Court, or for the head of the NSA or for any of the thousands of congressional staffers who are actually doing the legislating. Nor did I vote for the lobbyists who write the bills, or for ALEC or for the biggest PACs.
You could blame "the American People" if the elected officials were actually doing any governing. Unfortunately, we have outsourced everything to a bunch of people whose names we do not know and who are not accountable to anyone. That's why it sometimes seems so strange, how the legislative process often suddenly takes such unexpected turns, with last-minute changes and secrecy and obfuscation. I don't know too much about what it was like before the 1950's, but I know for sure that at least since 1980, the people we think of as our elected officials are not the ones running the government.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I normally don't resort to what is basically name-calling, but given how the 4th Amendment patently requires a number of criteria they are stating they will no longer bother with, that would normally make them criminals. However, with this statement, they've removed much of the ambiguity surrounding the searching issue, and added a significant amount of intent on their part. So instead of "merely" having criminals in high places at the DoJ, we have traitorous and un-American criminals instead.
This isn't, unfortunately, a conflict of law at the core, but instead a conflict of basic ideology and philosophy. If you believe in the constitution and the ideas about "freedom" and "equality" that it was built to maintain, you wouldn't try to argue your way around the spirit of the law. Everybody involve here knows damn well that the founders tried to stress the importance of limiting government's power and reach. So what do you call someone who willfully makes a point of acting against those very core ideas and protections? Someone who promises to continue violating the highest law of the land, in their own words?
Simple: "un-American traitors".
*sigh*
I guess I will keep trying to teach people gpg/otr/etc. One positive thing to come of this is that there have been more people receptive to learning some basic crypto the last month or so, than in the last ~12 years. "Better late than never?"
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
... as they do unto you.
Keep track, survey, note times, post, etc. etc.
Are there any projects -- is there anyone 'beschäftigt'
in this? It could be the chilling factor to put all such
state-run activities on ice. Notes such as "At 11:34 in
the a.m. senator ExWhyZee drank coffee" will get
their import sooner or later. If you don't think so you're
obliged to give a 'why' for the current surveillance-to-
the-last-comma.
Cheers my US compadres!
Is someone to post detailed location information of a key Congress member or two to the internet. Now if Snowden had collected some of that, it would really have been impressive to release it about now. It might get them moving on limiting the NsA's powers as well.
Yes, if it were possible to give them a dose of their own medicine here, that's about the only thing that might actually work...
The DOJ assertion is so out there that the letter justifies a court order and freedom of information request to very that these people are not acting as agents of foreign nations.
There are hundreds of courts and a hundred actions could freeze the information and eventually unearth the social network of anti americans that are involved in this plot.
Ties to the EU, France, Germany, China and more are clearly important links....
It is time for action... or just another beer.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
... part that's going to apply the 4th Amendment to cell phone calls and tapping internet communications. You know, stuff Madison et all had no clue was going to be on the horizon in the 18th century. So, you want to try again, since your "immutable" Constitution "only" mentions "persons, papers and effects"?
Listen up. If you want to reduce the power that government has, you have to take away its means to exert that power. That means you have to vote for people who will actually shrink government, who will pass laws protecting your privacy, and reduce the amount of money these agencies have to spend.
I.e. not republicans and not democrats. Unfortunately, 75% of the population is dependent upon government benevolence for their means of survival so they will happily give up their liberties in exchange for a fatter dole to draw from.
Someone please explain to me how the location of a call isn't considered one of the "call details"? After all, the IP address of a visitor to a website is considered part of the connection details or metadata. I don't see how location could be separated from 'call details', but I'm sure the government has a special twist about that, so what is it?
We can still vote them out, but if we don't make the effort, then I cannot sympathize. The blame still lies directly on the shoulders of the voters that reelect criminals. We are bumping into a fatal flaw of majority rule. We let others vote away our rights.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You are going to. Ending the police state is going to be bumpy but the world needs one light or there will be none.
I used to work Search and Rescue in the USCG, and almost every 'overdue boater' case we'd work on getting this very same cell phone information. Sure it was time critical (life/limb, etc) but even then we'd go through the proper channels. We'd just call and give them a heads up we'd need info on this number, they start the process then wait for *us* to meet the legal requirements before handing over the info, which 9 times out of 10 would show us that this 'overdue boater' just forgot to call his wife while out for beers along the coast :P
There is *never* an excuse to not use the proper channels.
I know, it's crazy. It's almost as if the point of the war on drugs isn't actually to stop the drug trade at all!
This is why I piss on Nixon's grave several times a year.
I like to think that old Tricky Dick ( who initiated the war on drugs )
is sitting on a sinking raft in the middle of a lake of fire, in hell,
but that he has a live video feed to people pissing on his grave.
Obama will fix this. Just keep waiting for it!
Your location is detectable because your phone has a transmitter inside. Unless it is free to operate, it will not transmit, and your location cannot be calculated. It requires power to operate. (For the optimists out there, it also requires not being in airplane-mode to operate.) It requires being in "free-space" to operate.
You are therefore free to decide when, and when not, you wish your location to be known. Perhaps you know someone who can install a power-off switch in the phone (or convert the ringer switch to one). Or perhaps you have a phone which lets you remove the battery, or know someone who can modify the phone so that the battery can be removed. Or perhaps you wish to carry the phone in a Faraday-cage-style bag or can.
There are options. Of course you'll have to be willing to give up some convenience. They are hoping you'll not be.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
We're all way too willing to surrender rights for security from terrorism. Look at the uproar when the TSA tried to repeal the small knives ban. The second another terrorism incident occurs, people will be looking for their civic scapegoat and no elected official wants to wear that bullseye. Until people are willing to accept risk, politicians have shrewdly decided to give the people what they demand.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yeah, you might want to spend 15minutes looking up legal definition of "personal effects" and see how broadly scoped it is, and was even back in the 16th century.
Om, nomnomnom...
The first "we're tracking your car" pushback on privacy was that knowing where you went was thought to be no different than a cop car following you everywhere you go, just more efficient.
How long will it be before listening in / recording your calls is explained as "it's no different than if we just walked 3 feet behind you all the time"?
I'll pulling my battery unless I need to make a call.
It's a fucking shame how our government is becoming more and more like the cold war-era East Germany.
They're going after that one next. What with the new gun banning laws, attacks on "stand your ground" laws. Heck most of the states have gotten rid of the Castle doctrine as well.
It's not so much that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself against the misbehaving government. It's more of a case that they don't want you to be able to defend yourself or others from a third party. Because government hates competition, and they want to be the only game in town when it comes to the protection racket. And not just the one they artificially created (terrorists, boogey men, the red scare), but of actual ones such as criminals (e.g. Trayvon Martin).
No, it *is* cut and dry. You say:
The 4th amendment defines what a reasonable search and/or seizure process consists of. And that definition is: a warrant, describing the things to be searched and/or seized; said warrant only being issuable upon determination of probable cause, as supported by oath or affirmation.
Just ask yourself: If that's not the definition of reasonable for the purpose of search, then why is it there in the first place? Do you think that's the definition of when they can't search? Do you think it's the definition of when you can have a cheeseburger? Do you think it is extra words left over from some other amendment?
Here's the 4th amendment in its entirety:
The 4th amendment tells you, albeit in somewhat archaic language, that search and seizure is not something that can be done unless all those specific points are met in a positive fashion. More pointedly, it's telling you that those metrics are what make the search reasonable. Reading it so that none of the metrics there apply if the searcher thinks the search is "reasonable" under any other criteria than those specified makes the amendment absolutely pointless and toothless; ergo that cannot be the correct way to read it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Those words don't mean what you think they mean. Which has caused you to completely misinterpret what the intention was.
Militia did not mean "national guard" or "army." It meant an armed citizen (male, typically) capable of fighting. You can be sure of this because there was no army or guard at the time. You can also be sure of it because that was how it was defined in law at the time.
The intent of the 4th is, in fact, to ensure that the citizens are armed.
While we're at it, "well regulated" didn't mean "lots of laws", it meant "consistently armed and prepared. So much shot, musket, powder, etc." Regulation was used in the sense that a clock is well regulated, consistent, dependable (in fact, a brand of clock at the time was "Regulator.")
Take a look at the Militia Acts of 1792 in order to shed a little light on what these terms actually mean.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A law on its own isn't really a solution here. What is needed is a constitutional amendment appending specific protections against this kind of thing to the Constitution.
The way I see it, there are two fundamental problems with applying the Fourth Amendment to this in our current legal system:
First, the records are not ours. They belong to the telecoms. Therefore, they can give them to any bloody person they choose. In fact, a citizen challenging this in court may even be told they have no standing to challenge it on fourth amendment grounds because it is not their own records, but the records of the telecoms.
Second, and more troubling, is that the law mentioned in TFA is certainly in violation of the intent of the Fourth Amendment, but not necessarily the letter of it. The unfortunate reality is that under the current system, law enforcement officials are probably correct to argue the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" point, legally speaking.
However, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that your whereabouts be stored by public or private entities in a way useful for tracking you. In fact, we have laws against that already. If not universally, certainly in most places, that would be considered stalking.
We have to realize that piling laws on top of laws isn't a solution when the law already violates our basic civil rights as intended by the Bill of Rights.
The only solution I can think of is clarifying amendments to the constitution that make clear our rights in a technologically saturated age. Without electing the right people, though, we stand no chance.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
From your public servants.
Look, people. If Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al don't need warrants, why the hell should we be required to get them every time we feel the need to violate your privacy?
Regards,
The Feds
I know, it's crazy. It's almost as if the point of the war on drugs isn't actually to stop the drug trade at all!
This is why I piss on Nixon's grave several times a year.
I like to think that old Tricky Dick ( who initiated the war on drugs )
is sitting on a sinking raft in the middle of a lake of fire, in hell,
but that he has a live video feed to people pissing on his grave.
That's nice, but if your goal is to piss on the grave of the man who started America's war on personal freedom, you've got the wrong guy (granted, Nixon didn't do us any favors).
The headstone you're looking for is that of one Harry J. Anslinger, the first US drug czar.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They're going after that one next. What with the new gun banning laws, attacks on "stand your ground" laws. Heck most of the states have gotten rid of the Castle doctrine as well.
Much as the feds would like it to be so, that's not the case. In fact, there are only 5 states (and the District of Columbia) that either do not have any castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws, or the ones they do are too weak to be effective.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
33/50 states do not have Castle Doctrine laws. That sounds like most, though I do recall a different number hence my usage of the word most. But sure, the stand your ground laws can function kind of like the castle doctrine, but they apply to different situations.
If you ask me, a person has a right to defend his property, especially his home. Stand your ground doesn't apply well to a house, because you have to prove you were in immediate danger, whereas the castle doctrine merely applies to someone breaking into your house.
Either way, the fact that we have any of these laws restricting self-defence and defence of our property is very problematic. People in fearful situations, under duress, and in split moments should not have to think about the law. The aggressor/person that initiated the incident already did, and the consequences of the situation are mostly theirs to bear.
Hate to respond to a trolling AC, but just can't resist.
Knowing that I have a mobile phone, or that I'm using it, isn't the same thing as knowing where I am 24/7, who I've called, how long I talked, etc. That information isn't normally discernible by anyone but me, the recipients of my communication, and the telecom providers I've contracted with to enable that communication. In other words, it's not public information.
Those processes probably don't exist yet.
crontab -e
0 0 1 * * rm -rf "Joe Dirt's Records"
M-X M-S
M-X M-C
That's some fancy pants futurismic sci-fi technojiggle right there. I can see why the cellphone companies have not figured out how to do it.
Sorry but records are held in simple files. I guess you have never worked with multiple complex databases.
Sorry but records are not held in simple files. I guess you have never worked with multiple complex databases.
FTFY.
Also:
cat recorddel.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use DBI;
my ($username, $password, $database, $recordname) = @_;
my $dbh = DBI->connect("dbi:mysql:database=$database;" .
"host=localhost;port=3306", $username, $password);
$SQL= "delete from PHONERECORDS where RECORDNAME=$recordname";
$DeleteRecord = $dbh->do($SQL);
print "Content-type:text/html\n\n\n";
if($DeleteRecord){
print "Success";
}
else{
print "Failure
$DBI::errstr";
}
-EOF-
crontab -e
0 0 1 * * recorddel.pl admin god VerizonRecords "Joe Dirt"
M-X M-S
M-X M-C
This is truly the kind of technology only the Ancients and the Asgard could dream of.