Slashdot Mirror
Florida Supreme Court: Police Can't Grab Cell Tower Data Without a Warrant
SternisheFan writes with an excerpt from Wired with some (state-specific, but encouraging) news about how much latitude police are given to track you based on signals like wireless transmissions. The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that obtaining cell phone location data to track a person's location or movement in real time constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and therefore requires a court-ordered warrant.
The case specifically involves cell tower data for a convicted drug dealer that police obtained from a telecom without a warrant. But the way the ruling is written (.pdf), it would also cover the use of so-called "stingrays" — sophisticated technology law enforcement agencies use to locate and track people in the field without assistance from telecoms. Agencies around the country, including in Florida, have been using the technology to track suspects — sometimes without obtaining a court order, other times deliberately deceiving judges and defendants about their use of the devices to track suspects, telling judges the information came from "confidential" sources rather than disclose their use of stingrays. The new ruling would require them to obtain a warrant or stop using the devices. The American Civil Liberties Union calls the Florida ruling "a resounding defense" of the public's right to privacy.
The case specifically involves cell tower data for a convicted drug dealer that police obtained from a telecom without a warrant. But the way the ruling is written (.pdf), it would also cover the use of so-called "stingrays" — sophisticated technology law enforcement agencies use to locate and track people in the field without assistance from telecoms. Agencies around the country, including in Florida, have been using the technology to track suspects — sometimes without obtaining a court order, other times deliberately deceiving judges and defendants about their use of the devices to track suspects, telling judges the information came from "confidential" sources rather than disclose their use of stingrays. The new ruling would require them to obtain a warrant or stop using the devices. The American Civil Liberties Union calls the Florida ruling "a resounding defense" of the public's right to privacy.
Yes! This is Horrible!
Rulings like this place obstacles in the way of law enforcement doing what they want, which makes it harder for them to do what they want!
They have enacted policies and procedures that rely on being able to do what they want without any interference from the courts, and things like this will CLEARLY allow criminals to escape JUSTICE! You dont want law enforcement to LET CRIMINALS GET AWAY, DO YOU!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
That's why the various 3-letter agencies are hard at work trying to get laws drafted that will make it legal for them to do what they want! (Because they need to be able to do what they want to do what they want, so they can use the procedures that they have created that rely on them being able to do what they want!)
*In case you hadn't noticed, I am laying it on thick for a reason. This is basically the argument, boiled down and rarefied to its most basic components, being provided by law enforcement against rulings and findings like this.
I would immediately dismiss as unverifiable. There is NO WAY to prove chain of custody if you're not being given the CoC right back to and INCLUDING the source.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Why do they want to hide what the Stingray can do when people think they already know what it does? Because it allows them to do a lot more than just track a cell phone in an area.
At the lowest level of LTE the provider can take control of the phone at a lower level than the operating system. Thus there is a tremendous amount of access to what the phone has other than location. They can turn on the microphone and listen and access other phone capabilities which makes it a much more powerful tool than just knowing the location of a handset or person in an area.
It does allow knowledge of the location down to meters and the number of active devices and locations within an area. This allows the operator to know how many people are in a building and map their locations and movements in real time.
My guess is that our government wants drugs to be sold and that those in charge of the system somehow gain either money or position by making such a decision. There is a balance of rights and the simple truth is that almost all crimes involve drugs or alcohol. Even the right to drive to work without being slaughtered by some drunk or stoned fool driving a car or truck is more basic that data from cell phone towers being private. Frankly our country has done so little to stop drugs that I don't place much faith in their claim of wanting to stop drugs. It is like illegal immigration. We could stop that with great ease if we wished. It is a no brainer. Simply insist upon every employee being checked by the authorities before any work or pay changes hands and confiscate homes or businesses that hire an illegal worker. A national ID would be of great help as well. No ID no work! The simple fact is that businesses love illegal workers a lot and they lobby to keep the borders leaking admissions.
What about "secure in their persons"? I'm pretty certain that my person should not be searched. That would include where I've been in order to determine where I'm going and where I am at any moment.. The government having access to this type of information at will does not make me secure from much of anything. As a direct result of my person being then where my person has been, in near totality, should not be a source of information accessible by government without a warrant. I can't see how any reasonable person can interpret that amendment much differently.
\r
"other times deliberately deceiving judges and defendants"
"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu
What we have is a National Security State at war with the domestic population.
...I've seen evidence from cell phone towers subpoenaed for an investigation. It's pretty interesting - they used surveillance camera photos from several establishments, including the one involved in the crime, but also spent a lot of time proving that the phones belonging to the targets of the investigation were in proximity to the crime as it was being committed.
And I don't think there's much oversight. I see a lot of opinions from the parties involved that, "well, it's just an indictment. If there's something unfair about this, it'll come out at the trial." I suspect my fellow jurors would indict the suspect who police handcuffed *after* they shot him to death, if the AUSA asked them.
Sleep well, citizens! (Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.)