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...
No! You are right, we should be fighting for our rights and these secret courts and massive intelligence gathering on the people is nothing short of what the Gestapo was engaged in back in .... ooo, is that a new Samsung GS4 Active?!? Shiny! Want!
[NO CARRIER]
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Ones that say that yes they do need a warrant.
I think you've got that one covered already, it's called the 4th amendment. Too bad you guys have spent decades deciding that the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' instead of a foundational document which is immutable. And you have politicians who now run with that, and instead of laws being challenged against the document for a breach against the people, you use the mass of interpretations, and fine legal hair splitting so you get screwed over.
Om, nomnomnom...
Warrants are meaningless.
1. the feds just go to their secret rubberstamp court to get them
2. this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Gates made them a joke since an LEO can get one by claiming an anonymous tip.
Here is how things happen now. Cops and feds use any kind of intrusive and illegal surveillance they want. Then if they don't like you for whatever reason get a warrant based on either national security or an "anonymous tip". Then they kick down your door, rough up your family, ransack your house, shoot your dogs (and you if you dont lick their boots or if they were just having a case of mondays). Then go to court claiming they found evidence which was really obtained through the illegal methods they used earlier.
Then even if they get caught doing something blatantly illegal there is never any meaningful penalty for the individuals involved. At worst the taxpayers of the municipality pay out a settlement that is trivial compared to the total budget, most of which goes to the lawyers and not to the people who were wronged.
We currently live in a police state because no practical limitations to the powers of the police.
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
Tried it, didn't work - remember "Hope and Change?" Hell, not only did dude fail to uphold his campaign promises, the motherfucker doubled-down on anti-Constitutional activities!
Don't feel bad, I voted for the bastard once myself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The only time law enforcement needs a warrant is when the only person or organization that has a copy of the data says "no, you need a warrant".
If you have a vehicle, house, or letter, and law enforcement asks if they can look about, and you say yes, you just waived your rights. If someone has your data, regardless of whether you think it belongs to you or not, and law enforcement asks to see it, that someone can say yes and they just waived their rights. Because someone else has a copy of your data, they can waive *your* rights.
The problem here is really about how hard a group has to push back. With a National Security Letter, or visit from an agent, or any request other than a warrant, someone has to first say "no" to the request.
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act only comes into play in these situations. I think it's important to consider that all of this hand-wringing is nowhere near the total number of requests that require hand-wringing.