Slashdot Mirror
US Court Says No Warrant Needed For Cellphone Location Data (reuters.com)
Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: Police do not need a warrant to obtain a person's cellphone location data held by wireless carriers, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday, dealing a setback to privacy advocates. The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, voted 12-3 that the government can get the information under a decades-old legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company. The ruling overturns a divided 2015 opinion from the court's three-judge panel and reduces the likelihood that the Supreme Court would consider the issue. The decision arose from several armed robberies in Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland, in early 2011, leading to the convictions of Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan. The convictions were based in part on 221 days of cellphone data investigators obtained from wireless provider Sprint, which included about 29,000 location records for the defendants, according to the appeals court opinion.
Leave your phone at home son, when you take your guns to town.
The ruling overturns a divided 2015 opinion from the court's three-judge panel and reduces the likelihood that the Supreme Court would consider the issue.
Why would this make it less like that the SC would consider the issue? From a google search of stories on Slashdot, I see courts ruling differently on this issue in several jurisdictions. That seems to solidify that the Supreme Court would take this up.
Slashdot stories on cellphone location data rulings. Here are 3 cases where courts ruled differently than today's ruling. The US 4th district doesn't include Florida, for example, which ruled otherwise.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Except whoops, the Supreme court is neutered right now and can't make any decisions... :-(
The use of burner phones this is nigh pointless.
open to everyone
Kangaroo Court wipes ass with Constitution, declares plebs have no rights, encourages regime to press ahead with #badlaws. News at 11!
Given that they were investigating armed robberies, why on Earth didn't they just get a warrant instead of spending all that taxpayer money fighting court cases to be able to do so without getting a warrant?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The fourth amendment says nothing about "third parties." Not one word.
This is just more judicial activism continuing to bite the citizens in the posterior.
Reasonable = probable cause, oath or affirmation, description(s) of place to be searched and item(s) to be seized, which allow for a warrant to be issued. Anything else = UNreasonable.
Anything the justices say to the contrary is in direct violation of their oath of office.
Not that there's any surprise in that.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Every mobile OS requires the application to request to use your location data and be approved by the user. Moreover, most applications are not constantly collecting your location data, and even less frequently storing it permanently on a separate system. "Sending your location to every app you installed" is quite the overstatement.
They aren't neutered. They simply are able to deadlock. Doesn't mean they will, or have to.
There's no set size for the court. It's been larger, and it's been smaller. It's been even numbered and it's been odd numbered.
Doesn't much matter anyway. They do whatever they want. We're long past them actually paying any attention to the oaths they swore.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Does that mean if I leave my cell phone at home while committing a crime I can now use that as an alibi?
The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, voted 12-3 that the government can get the information under a decades-old legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company
... with whom I have a contract that ought to contain privacy terms and a disclaimer than certain information may be provided to law enforcement only under due legal process, i.e. a warrant.
TracFone is the company behind many of the cell phone carriers: TracFone, NET10 Wireless, Total Wireless, Straight Talk, SafeLink Wireless, Telcel América, Simple Mobile, and Page Plus Cellular. As has been said, a cellphone is a tracking device that also makes phone calls.
Why do you think Apple bought the electronic device rights to Liquid Metal Technology then never built a phone out of it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Clearly, they saw how google had become a tracking company and they needed to keep this out of the hands of hands before they made the Android model T-1000 human tracker.
I only use a Commander Adama phone, or none at all just like Sarah Conner taught me.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The telephone company really is the "first" or "second". This isn't "released data", it's a requirement for the service they sell to work at all. It's technically impossible to "opt out" of, or restrict, and still have the device function at all. In this court's fantasy world, who is the "first" and "second" party, if the teleco is the "third"?
AFAIK, apps that request location data have a right to keep that data as long as they want, and they can hand it off to police all they want. It doesn't matter what the carrier does with its copy, you have a mess of apps trying to enable the location data.
There are two different legal theories used to justify this. There is the third-party approach, and the business records approach. Around half of Slashdot commenters actively support the business records excuse, whether or not they realize it.
Government passes law saying that carriers must _____ (provide good service in the sticks, hire enough black people, whatever), liberals cheer.
Goverment inspects carrier's call/personnel records to ensure that the _______ (carrier has good service in BFE/hired enough black people, whatever).
Carrier gets tired of monthly audits, goes to court.
Court rules that govt can inspect the carrier's records any time they want to, liberals cheer.
Govt inspects YOUR call records and YOUR personnel file.
Liberals get mad at carrier, demand law that carriers must _____.
Rinse and repeat.
It's actually a tough issue because in some ways you DO want the government to be able to look at Sprint's business records; on the other hand Sprint's records are records about you, their customer.
Oh, are you just now realizing that your telephone company regularly helps the government spy on you?
It's only extremely partisan court decisions that are likely to deadlock. I'm not so sure that there's reason to believe this would be a terribly partisan court decision.
Benito noted it was the regimentation of corporate and government interests in the effort to "govern" the people. Welcome to American Fascism. I never disclosed my information to a third party willingly.... And I fail to see how my contract for a secure network with an American Public Company (or Private) constitute my divulgence of such information to a third party.
The decision is predicated on the suggestion that cell phone users willingly surrendering information. How is this willingly when a cell phone has become a necessity and there's no way to disable it and keep the phone on.
voted for Obama and cheered as Harry Reid exercised the "nuclear option" to eliminate Republican filibusters in the Senate in 2013. The specific point of that action was to pack the federal courts of appeals that cover the DC area (and thus are the ones that rule on cases challenging the power of the federal government over individuals) with "progressive" judges. Obama and Reid were absolutely committed to packing the 4th circuit and they did it. The Republicans had been using the filibuster to prevent that court from being packed. There are 19 judges on that court now (thanks in part to Obama adding more seats) and 12 of them were put there by Carter, Clinton, or Obama (the remaining 7 were put there by Republicans).
This is a progressive ruling, completely consistent with "early 20th century progressive" ideology which favors totalitarian governance, and put in place by a court stuffed full of progressive judges. It's absolutely disingenuous for ANY progressive/Hillary/Obama supporter to complain about this ruling; it's EXACTLY what you support when you support those politicians. To complain is on par with jumping off a cliff and then complaining that you are going to hit the ground and it will hurt - in both cases you took the action and it had completely predictable and inevitable consequences. If you hate this ruling and think you are a progressive then you have no understanding of "progressive" political ideology and probably just stupidly fell into it because the word sounded like "progress" and your teachers/professors successfully propagandized you; If you'd ever bothered to turn off the Kardashians and READ A BOOK about 20th century progressivism you'd have known better. Any ACTUAL progressive would be celebrating this ruling.
"legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company"
How could anyone interpret the phone company being a 3rd party in such a case? I'd say they are the 1st party, maybe I could even be convinced that they are the 2nd party (the user being the 1st), but 3rd? The phone company is the first party to get and possess the location information, it comes though their infrastructure, it's in their database, they handle the information, and they can provide it to the police. Also, you don't "disclose" your location, you just acknowledge that they know it, since them knowing your location is an integral functional part of their service.Ehh.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
A simple fact that the courts have missed is that wireless carriers are not third parties. CALEA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... gets in the way, and should have been a HUGE stop sign. There is no possible way that you can misconstrue a carrier as a third party when they are ordered to provide surveillance capabilities to the government. (and most sensible people read that statute as requiring a warrant to request the data/metadata )
It would be Sunny here by the Beach, but too many drones and black helicopters blot out any sunshine.
You forgot the part where carriers are ordered (CALEA) to provide support for surveillance. Kind of a HUGE omission.
Sorry, cell phones are not a necessity. Food, water, and shelter are necessities. Cell phones are a luxury, and notably lower on the totem pole than refrigeration, running water, and sewage treatment. If you decide you have to have a cell phone on hand you can always remove the battery while not actively using it, or you could keep it in a shielded container to prevent it constantly reporting. I'm sure you could also open up the phone if you really wanted to and remove/modify the GPS chip, although the police could then still know which towers you were near.
I'm making a note here: Huge Success
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
The difference between a copper line phone call and a cellular signal is frequency and strength. In fact it is much easier to tap a copper line than it is to break encryption or to collect phone call metadata.
The legal principle should be whether the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you make an encrypted phone call do you expect a third party to be able to listen to your conversation? Is it lawful for you to intercept an encrypted phone call? Can a third party casually intercept and decrypt your conversation? Can law abiding citizens intercept and decrypt the government's communications? If a government official made an encrypted phone call could a third party collect metadata about the government's communications and publish it without permission?
What the court has ruled is that because it is technically possible it is lawful for the government to spy on law abiding citizens Citizens are not permitted to use technological means to create a private space.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
A third party is a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation. In this case the first party and the second party are conversing by phone. http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
I was part of a jury pool in the 9th Circuit about 2 years ago and the judge told the prospective jurors that exactly this type of metadata would be shown as evidence. He also stated that this evidence was gathered without a warranty. As a prospective juror, I raised my hand and said that I was unwilling to find the defendant guilty if the prosecution's case hinged on that information because I believe this application of the 3rd party doctrine to be illegal. The judge responded that his job as judge is to decide which evidence is legal (and this evidence was "legal") to introduce and my job as a juror was to weigh that evidence without worrying about its legality. I then responded that Richard Nixon once famously said that "if the president does it, it's legal" and I went on to indicate, "we all know how that worked out". I was dismissed from the pool.
This is the same argument that the government makes about the no fly list ("Flying is not a right, and you can always walk, drive, take a boat, or go fuck yourself hard enough that the force thereof will accelerate you to near light speed and you'll get there faster than the plane would"). Let me rephrase it for you: "You can have all of the rights guaranteed to you by the constitution, as long as you choose not to participate in the modern world."
That argument might work for the Amish, but it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test with anyone else.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Those judges will think different once they realize that they're "disclosing" all their DNA-laden dead skin cells to their Asian laundry service—they argue in some tonal language that DNA sequencing abets selection of the optimal detergent enzymes—and "disclosing" their DNA-laden saliva at the local Mexican diner—they argue in Spanish that DNA sequencing abets selection of the optimal flavour molecules—and all those other white-privilege leaks that Donald's silly wall won't fix.
It's a competitive world. Business necessities ever expand.
The time has come, I think, to award a new Ignoble Prize for year's most brainless "parse job", in which a precious, literal reading of a formal text isn't compatible with five minutes worth of broad observation of the real world.
I'm not for the government on this issue, or the no fly list, I'm just pointing out that cell phones are not a necessity. I've owned cell phones on and off over the years and while very convenient, they are by no means necessary for modern life. Comically enough though, I know practicing Amish folks that do use cell phones. It depends on the particular Amish community, but the apparent prohibition on electricity stems from a prohibition on having wires entering the home. Using cell phones avoids the need for wires coming in and out of the house if you charge it in your workshop or anywhere really that isn't in your house.
Just another general warrant or crown writ, which 300 years of legal history has proven a bad idea. Did they spit on the Constitution when the court announced it too? And the "3d party" is bullshit
If you're carrying an operating cell phone, you're willingly surrendering location information to your provider. The reason there's no way to disable the location notification and keep the phone on is that that's not how cell phones work. The provider knows which tower you're talking to when you're on the phone, and has to know which tower can reach you if you're to get incoming calls.
Once someone else has information about you, it's their information (in the US, anyway), and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply because it isn't your papers and effects. You've already surrendered that information to a third party.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not for the government on this issue, or the no fly list, I'm just pointing out that cell phones are not a necessity.
I tend to agree in principle, but I would point out that they CAN be necessities. When you job, for example, requires you to have one so you are reachable after hours. This is no longer a "luxury."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Well alright, if the cops don't need a warrant to go find the location data from anyone's cell phone, then neither do I.
Gimme the past 2 years of movement of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. And the names and paths of all those who intersected them within 30 feet for more than an hour.
Let me see who has visited the white house in the past decade, and what rooms they went into.
When have the paths of two congressmen crossed for more than 20 minutes outside of congress? Hell, let's throw CEOs in that search as well.
Here's the list of all the judges on that court of appeals. Let's see where they go eat lunch. Where they've slept at night and in whose room. Lets see who has gone to what sort of doctors office. Who do they golf with?
As none of this is now protected by the 4th amendment and enjoys no legal right to privacy, they should be perfectly fine with this data being openly searchable by the masses. If big brother wants to watch, then little brother should stare right back.