Slashdot Mirror
Justices Ponder Need For Warrant For Cellphone Tower Data (apnews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Like almost everyone else in America, thieves tend to carry their cellphones with them to work. When they use their phones on the job, police find it easier to do their jobs. They can get cellphone tower records that help place suspects in the vicinity of crimes, and they do so thousands of times a year. Activists across the political spectrum, media organizations and technology experts are among those arguing that it is altogether too easy for authorities to learn revealing details of Americans' lives merely by examining records kept by Verizon, T-Mobile and other cellphone service companies. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court hears its latest case about privacy in the digital age. At issue is whether police generally need a warrant to review the records. Justices on the left and right have recognized that technology has altered privacy concerns. The court will hear arguments in an appeal by federal prison inmate Timothy Carpenter. He is serving a 116-year sentence after a jury convicted him of armed robberies in the Detroit area and northwestern Ohio.
If you have to think about it for too long, then you should err on the side of individual rights. When, exactly, did getting a warrant become such a burden on law enforcement?
Unacceptable. This is not public information; even voluntary release of your information by the tower operator should be considered a search of your private dealings. We have wire tapping laws because you can just ask the telco to tap a persons line--voluntary release of data by the telco--and that serves as a stand-in for illegally entering your house without a warrant and placing listening devices (search).
Obtaining non-public information from a third party is akin to wire tapping. It's not the same thing; therefor we need stronger privacy laws.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The accused in the case robbed some Radio Shacks and cell phone stores and (ironically) stole phones. He didn't kill or seriously maim anyone.
How does what amounts to a life sentence make sense for this crime? Especially while pharma CEOs who get people hooked on opioids, polluters who cause cancer clusters, etc walk free.
Answer: it was his punishment for requesting a jury trial, not entering into a plea bargain under threat of a severe sentence. This case embodies a lot of what is wrong with the American injustice system. Even if you have no sympathy for the accused, remember that the taxpayers will be paying to jail him for life, instead of giving him a reasonable sentence and rehabilitating him.
This is money that can be spent on other services or simply returned to the taxpayers. Beyond disgusting.
Armed robbery is bad, and multiple armed robberies is worse, but 116 years seems like overkill.
I know it's not the point of the article... but I feel like the sentencing algorithms have some bugs.
I stole this Sig
So basically, what you're saying is, "If you don't want your phone calls eavesdropped, you should not use a device that broadcasts them over radio frequency."
If police should need a warrant to listen in on phone calls, they should need a warrant for location information as well. Remember, this location information is between you and the phone company.
And why is it such a horrible burden for law enforcement to obtain a warrant in the first place? Is it because they're afraid a judge will look at their lack of evidence and say "no"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
It is not public information, but it is also not yours, or my information that we own. It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it.
It is exactly the same thing, information about your whereabouts from a third party. No warrant needed.
And if you think that only the Cell companies are tracking your every move, you're very mistaken. Every large box store, every website, every app, everything you do is being tracked right now. Short of being a luddite cave dweller, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Shop at BigBoxCo, your purchase is linked to you (unless you use cash everywhere 100% of the time). Result, when you finally get the BigBoxCo Credit Card, it already knows what you've purchased even without using it.
That Gaming ap you use to catch pocketmonsters ? Tracking you. ... Tracking you.
That Speedometer, Traffic App, Map App, Ride Hailing App
The fact is, there are about a million datapoints per year per person ... all tracking you.
And you don't even need to use Facebook for the world to know about you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually, in civilized countries, there IS an expectation of privacy in business records. The EU actually has data retention limits that require deletion of such data after a specific time period. Location data is also considered personal, not strictly a business record.
If someone used cell location data to (say) stalk a celebrity, would the "business record" argument fly? What's wrong with cops having to ask a judge for a warrant? Why should police be given any more power than they need?
I've been in the vicinity of a strip club in Rantoul, Illinois
Let's say there was stripper murdered behind the strip club. So the police check the phone data, and 1000 people were in the vicinity. Then a few days later there is another murder behind another strip club, and another 1000 people were in the vicinity at the time of the murder ... but there is this one guy that was at both places. The police might want to talk to that guy.
Requiring the police to get a warrant may slow this process down by several minutes.
If police want information from a goddamn phone, they need to get a goddamned warrant.
This isn't about getting information from a phone. It is about getting information collected by a cell tower. They want info from the phone company, not from you.
It is not public information, but it is also not yours, or my information that we own. It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it.
In which case you know there was a robbery and you have reason to believe the video contains the details of the crime.
That's a bit different than walking in and saying, hey, give me all the video on this guy. No reason, just I want it. It's also a bit different from the liquor store reporting a crime and surrendering video related to the details of that crime: they're not under law enforcement order to surrender that information, and are attaching it as relevant to a crime which has been committed against them.
Further, places with CCTV announce they have CCTV. This is to avoid laws forbidding them from recording you without consent of all involved parties.
By contrast, your cell phone provider may or may not be storing data about you long-term, but is presumably recording information for a time—long enough to keep track of where you are at the moment, so the towers function, at a minimum. If you commit a crime against their network, they have every right to bundle relevant data up and submit it with their complaint to the police or courts. Typically, the police initiate the contact, and request they surrender data about you.
There's no reason the government should be allowed to arbitrarily poke into non-public information about you. If they don't have and cannot obtain a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to thumb through private data at their leisure to build a case about your contact patterns so as to open up an investigation against you. No, they shouldn't be allowed to just request CCTV data, either--your shop can volunteer the relevant recordings when reporting a crime, and they can ask you for the relevant recordings if the next guy over got robbed and they believe you captured something of that, as they'll have a warrant for obtaining that data.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I would take the side they don't need a warrant for the cell tower triangulation data if the phone company is willing to part with it.
If no warrant is required, then how is the phone company supposed to know it is a legitimate crime investigation, and not some cop trying to track down the guy dating his ex-girlfriend?
Many people assume that getting a warrant is an undue burden. Most jurisdictions have judges available or on-call 24/7, and a judge can review and issue a warrant in a few minutes if it is clearly justified.
are the media pimps and lobbyists who make money on people remaining afraid, despite crime being at a 50 year low, and the US generally being a safe country.
Though I'm not going to excuse the American voters just because they're "frightened," either.
You misspelled "privileges"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it....No warrant needed."
But a warrant is needed if the liquor store owner doesn't want to voluntarily give up the video. And a warrant is justified for a reasonable search, since it's virtually a certainty that the thief is on the video.
Getting location records for thousands of cellular customers is an unreasonable search. No only is it not certain that the perp is in the data, it is a certainty that the vast majority of data (which the cellco's had promised to keep confidential) is related to innocent citizens.
The 4th Amendment is there to protect against fishing expeditions, which this is.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it. It is exactly the same thing, information about your whereabouts from a third party. No warrant needed.
They are not the same thing. If a liquor store gets robbed THEY are the ones calling the cops and they are the one providing the tape. First party. The phone company isn't the one calling the cops so they are a third party. Can you not see the difference? Police can go and ask but the phone company should be under no obligation to comply without a warrant. Likewise if they suspect that a liquor store might have footage of the guy who robbed some other store nearby the police can ask but the liquor store should be under no obligation to cooperate unless served a warrant.
And if you think that only the Cell companies are tracking your every move, you're very mistaken.
True but irrelevant. Just because there are other datapoints about your location does not mean anything in this particular circumstance. My legal right to privacy doesn't change just because someone is nosy.
This case is seeking to overturn the "we signed away the data". As in, we signed away the data cause the telcos needed it to do a job. This is trying to reverse that law so just giving them access to do a job doesn't mean they own the data.
Also, you do not need a search warrant to get telco data. Since it's their data on you, you have no 4th amendment rights. And, since it's their data on you, they have no 4th amendment rights. I mean, they can charge something because it costs them money to comply, but that 's it.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I remember when call records were the property of the calling/called parties. Not the phone company. There was a statement in the customer agreement to the effect that the telephone company would access these records for the purpose of billing and resolving technical problems. Otherwise, they had a fiduciary duty to protect it on my behalf. I think this changed around 1996 with some fine print in a telecom bill. Now they are the property of the phone company. And the phone company doesn't really give a shit about my privacy.
Lets put the law back the way it was. Or, if these records are property of the phone company and they are willing to sell them, then I and my friends at various foreign intelligence agencies should be free to buy them*. Including the call records of US NOC agents and the dummy businesses they contact. With a bit of link analysis, foreign intelligence can unravel the structure of many of our covert operations.
*Oh yeah. They already sell this info to whoever will pay.
Have gnu, will travel.
" This isn't about getting information from a phone. It is about getting information collected by a cell tower. They want info from the phone company, not from you. "
Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Curious if your logic works the same way if we change the mechanism a bit.
Do you think the police need a warrant to peruse through your credit card statements at will or perhaps take a look at your bank accounts whenever they feel the need to ?
Online habits perhaps ?
After all, they want info from the Bank, Credit Card issuer or your ISP, not from you.
The bottom line is this: If you want identifying or detailed information of any kind on an individual, then a warrant shoud be required. Regardless of where the information is stored, it still pertains to an individual.
In which case you know there was a robbery and you have reason to believe the video contains the details of the crime. That's a bit different than walking in and saying, hey, give me all the video on this guy. No reason, just I want it.
The story did not say that the police went to the phone company and asked for location data about every person in the area. They asked for a specific person's data. Why? Because they had a reason to believe the info relates to the crime.
Further, places with CCTV announce they have CCTV.
People carrying a cell phone are being tracked by the cell company.
If you commit a crime against their network, they have every right to bundle relevant data up and submit it with their complaint to the police or courts.
Two points you just made here. First, they own that data and can use it as they see fit without asking you. Second, they keep the data so they can prove any crimes, which may not come to completion for months. So: they own the data and they can keep it for a long time. If you truly thought the data was protected by warrant, then the phone company could not release it for their own benefit without your permission, but you claim they can do that. Thus, there is no need for a warrant.
No, they shouldn't be allowed to just request CCTV data,
So the CCTV images collected by the store or company you are near don't belong to them, they belong to you? If they belong to the company, can't they do with them what they please?
and they can ask you for the relevant recordings if the next guy over got robbed and they believe you captured something of that, as they'll have a warrant for obtaining that data.
You admit that the cops can ask for data. If the company gives them the data just by asking, they don't need a warrant. If they have a warrant, it isn't "asking" anymore.
Warrants are intended to stop involuntary release of information. If you let a cop in your front door he doesn't need a warrant to see what he sees. YOU volunteered to let him be in a place where he might see something. If a telephone company voluntarily releases their data about you, it doesn't need a warrant.
You've admitted that a telephone company can release location data about you if they are reporting a crime you've committed against them. Here's the interesting bit about legal theory. Do yo ever wonder why a criminal case is not "Joe Smith vs. Bob Jones", but is "The State of Michigan vs. Bob Jones"? The legal theory is that a crime is committed against the state -- all of us -- and thus is prosecuted by the state.
Getting location records for thousands of cellular customers is an unreasonable search.
The story is about location data for one cellular customer. The court case is about that one convicted criminal.
Of course warrants should be mandated. Without monitoring and checks, the victims of police have little or no protection or legal recourse. To prevent abuse the police should be monitored and checked constantly in every way feasible while on the job. Here are just a few of the recent examples of police corruption and abuse.
- In Denver, the police are stealing cars.
- In New York, police handcuffed and raped a teenager. Then over a dozen other cops threatened the victim to prevent her from reporting the crime.
- Police steal more than criminals.
- In Utah a cop who assaulted and arrested a nurse for objecting to his inappropriate demands to draw blood from a suspect.
- In Los Angeles a cop was caught by his own body cam planting drugs on a suspect.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I happened to recently read a couple of insightful articles by law professors about this specific case.
The first article made the very good point that a positive law rule covers a lot of this. In other words, if a regular private citizen couldn't normally get the information, then the Police should need a warrant to get it.
The second writer says he disagrees, but mostly makes the point that just using that standard isn't enough, because sometimes there are other factors which would go into a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Personally, I'm hoping for a bright-line test for the police to come out of this case which lets everyone know that the police can't go through data people normally don't have access to. I'm not holding by breath, though.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I don't think there should be a high bar for being able to search mobile tower records, but there should be a bar.
Specifically, I think any search must first be lodged with the judiciary with full details as to the scope of and reason for the search. And telephony providers should have full audit trails of what searches were performed so it can be verified that the searches complied with the scope.
People who transmit their voice using radio should be educated that they are doing that, not coddled into thinking there is some magic that turns the insecure medium they are using into a secure one. And people who carry devices that they know can be used to track them whereever they go should learn to live with the natural result of their decision, not have artificial legal protections put in place to allow them their convenience while avoiding the results of their decisions.
And people who radiate heat should know that it could be used to track them even through curtains and walls?
I don't think so. There's something known as "a reasonable expectation of privacy". When lawmakers in the 19th century talked about "a walk in the woods" having an expectation of privacy, I'm fairly certain that they didn't mean that you should be free to track their location.
Unless you deliberately broadcast where you are, you should have the expectation that no-one is triangulating traffic the average user may not even knows exists.