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."

Comments

This seems batshit crazy.

[ArylAkamov]

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?

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[TWX]

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.

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[AK Marc]

The analogy I come up with is:

Would the government need a warrant to compel your mother to turn over all the letters she's sent to you over the years, so they can retro-actively track your location in an attempt to link you to crimes?

I worked for a telco (still do, but outside the US now), and the official policy was to comply, without question, to all court orders (warrants being a subset of court orders). Without a court order, we would be breaking the law (both state and federal) to even confirm Bob Smith was a customer, whether it's the local police, sherrif, state cops, or US President asking. But a court order to turn over records (if any), releases us from from any and all legal liability. It might not be able to stand up in court, but that's not our problem.

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[TheGratefulNet]

you're an idiot, then. only an idiot talks to cops unless under arrest.

talking to a cop can ruin your life even if you are fully innocent and have the best intentions. go watch the famous youtube video 'dont talk to cops'. you need to learn a few things.

oh, and btw, they train cops to lie and to weasel info out of you. its formal training. they know the game. shame that you are still ignorant of how its played.

btw, who DO I know that the cop is not trying to seek revenge against someone? lets say you are in a black neighborhood and a cop comes looking for a guy. you going to just give that info out? really?

bad idea all around. this is what warrants are for. get a warrant and we'll talk, but not until then.

Re:This seems batshit crazy.

[omfgnosis]

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.

If you're employed as a highwayman

[rmdingler]

If you steal for a living, and you haven't watched enough crime TV to know you don't want to be carrying a subscription cell phone with you on game night,

shit, you need to investigate another line of work.

Attention to detail is not your strong suit.

Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack...

[fche]

"Your phone carrier MUST know"

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

Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers

[TWX]

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...

Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers

[suutar]

The court never needs a warrant to _ask_ for information. They need a warrant to have the request backed by force. If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed. If they choose not to comply, then a warrant may get issued and the data will be taken forcibly.

Re:Extract your cranium from your anus, buddy.

[omfgnosis]

'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.

Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers

[russotto]

You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.

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

Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers

[Guy From V]

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

Re:Just stupid

[meta-monkey]

I read the decision. Go read the first few pages (linked in TFS). It makes perfect sense to me.

What do you think happened here? The cops didn't just go mining some random guy's cell signal.

They already had tons of evidence against the guy. Eyewitness testimony. Camera footage of the armed robberies (someone matching his description). DNA evidence collected from the getaway car. The government presented this to a federal magistrate who said it constitutes reasonable grounds for the government to seize the phone records that are relevant and material to the case.

And the only data they got was, for the specific two month period the armed robberies were underway, this one person's call records, limited to phone number, data/time/duration, incoming or outgoing, and the cell tower location. No call contents. No text message contents. No keep-alive packets or other location tracking data when the phone was powered but not making or receiving a call. No GPS data. Just enough to say "we know the suspect was in this mile and a half radius making a phone call near the time of the robbery."

So what do you think is the problem?

Were there not reasonable grounds to authorize the order? Not enough evidence? Were the phone records not relevant to the case? Do you think too much information was seized?

I'm genuinely curious as to where you think the government overreach occurred in this case, or if you just think the government should never be able to seize or search anything for any reason.