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.
Yep. There's never any reason to keep the source of information secret from the judge that issues the warrant.
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.
The question should be what is so fucking hard about getting a warrant? They are handed out like candy these days so what is so hard about getting one?
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.