Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

Posted by Soulskill on from the your-data-is-our-data dept.

mi writes: A new ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found by a margin of 9-2 that law enforcement does not need to get a warrant to grab your cell phone's location records. The justices ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for your location when you're using a cell phone. This decision (PDF) was based on a case in which a man was convicted of robbery after months of location data was given to authorities by his cell phone carrier, MetroPCS. Police got the information using a court order, rather than a warrant, because there were less stringent requirements involved. One of the judges wrote: "We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage."

8 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. This seems batshit crazy. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?

    This worries me. How long before no expectation of privacy when using the internet?

    When using a car? (GPS in modern cars)

    When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?

    1. Re:This seems batshit crazy. by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I am not broadcasting my location to third parties, I am communicating with one party in particular, the cellular carrier to which I have a business arrangement over a very short wave, using encrypted means of communication.

      If I had a ham radio connected to a GPS receiver that'd be a different matter, but as a cell user I'm not broadcasting for all to hear. There are laws about that actually, there are bits of analog spectrum that it's still illegal to listen to because at one time telephone conversations happened on those frequencies in clear analog.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:This seems batshit crazy. by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?

      It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.

      If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.

      The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location. They can't make the phone call work without knowing your location. Again, I don't know if they have the right to refuse to give the information to the police, but I expect they have the right to give it to the police.

    3. Re:This seems batshit crazy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible.

      Privacy will always be possible. The question is whether we will permit that possibility to be taken from us. Just because large organizations like the government and megacorps can spy on us does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Any group that large will also be vulnerable to social pressure including, but not limited to, laws.

      > The question is, will we adapt and how will we adapt?

      Privacy is intrinsic to being human. Privacy is what allows us to decide who we are, to try out new behaviors and ideas to see if they are for us. A world without privacy is a world in which every stupid thing we do is part of our permanent record.

      And if you think that people will simply learn to "not judge" then you don't understand what it means to be human in the first place - finding reasons to separate "us" from "them" is also intrinsic to being human. it is how we define family, friends, peers, etc. Too much of it turns into tribalism, but too little of it means no incentive to build institutions that society depends on.

  2. Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack... by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Your phone carrier MUST know"

    Yes, but that's not the same as saying the _police_ should know.

  3. Re:Extract your cranium from your anus, buddy. by omfgnosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'broadcasting' in the tech sense, yes, but NOT in the usual PUBLIC SENSE. convenient that you leave that part out.

    [... other stuff...]

    Broadcasting can't be said to be being done in any one particular sense. It's broadcasting, PERIOD. Your cellphone, when operating in normal, customary mode, (not off, or in airplane mode, etc.,) is sending out a radio signal identifying itself to cell towers; without cellphones doing this, the cellular telephone system wouldn't work.

    While I won't bother getting in the middle of the rest of the dispute, you're making a technical argument about a legal, non-technical distinction. I can see how you'd make that mistake, because the context also makes some technical claims. But let's be clear: in legal terms, "broadcast" (sending data over radio waves) is not the same as "broadcast" (making content available to an audience). Writing an email on the bus doesn't give the riders permission to read its contents, just as downloading a song does not constitute a public performance.

    This is an important distinction.

  4. Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.

    It's so cute that people still think that actually means something.

  5. Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers by Guy+From+V · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "America is at that awkward stage: too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."