Slashdot Mirror
Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant
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."
The justices ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for your location when you're using a cell phone. 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.
A right and well justified decision, since it's not about the privacy of the communication but about the location records, in the same way a witness can testify that a suspect was in some location - and no warrant is needed because a court can order a witness to testify.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
I know I'm going up against many years of case law here, but... the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about privacy. It says no searches and seizures without a warrant.
So the question is: Is it legal for MetroPCS to hand over the data, presumably in violation of their privacy policy and CPNI laws? Or did they do it because they were threatened and intimidated?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
I was under the impression that my private business with my cellular phone provider was just that, private, and without a warrant this information in the form of 'papers and effects' was supposed to be subject to 4th Amendment protections unless sought via warrant process...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Any person with sufficiently sensitive equipment can essentially intercept any transmission, and discover a whole lot that isn't an explicit transmission. By this logic, we cannot legally expect to defend any form of privacy once it is compromised. That certainly appears to be the realpolitik, but it doesn't have to be accepted or defended. It certainly isn't justified by the fact that sound and light waves can be perceived by ears and eyes.