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
Carrying a tracking device is not a good idea if you don't want to be tracked. Cellphones are basically tracking devices that also place phone calls and take photos of incriminating evidence.
Leave your phone at home when doing naughty things - it will give you an alibi!
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Florida Supreme Court rules that a bunch of criminals who broke the most sacred laws of the land, won't get punished for their previous crimes.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I consider my phone to be "papers and effects" pretty heavily. Everyone does. That this was even a question is pretty annoying.
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.
Well, they already are doing it, as there is nobody providing oversight that will actually stop them from doing it in any meaningful way. They just want the laws changed so they don't take a PR hit every couple of weeks from these practices being revealed to the public.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
...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.)