5th Circuit Upholds Warrantless Collection of Cellphone Location Info

[Brainonska511]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/technology/warrantless-cellphone-tracking-is-upheld.html?hp&_r=0

In a significant victory for law enforcement, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said that government authorities could extract historical location data directly from telecommunications carriers without a search warrant.
....

For now, the ruling sets an important precedent: It allows law enforcement officials in the Fifth Circuit to chronicle the whereabouts of an American with a court order that falls short of a search warrant based on probable cause.


....

And law enforcement cheers today, for they can now do even more without getting those pesky and inconvenient warrants. It's so much easier when you can just do your job without some other government department telling you what you can and can't do.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Obama doesnt care about The Constitution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama doesnt care about The Constitution.

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault- everything. It's Kenyan Mooslim Voodoo Timewarp Mind Control.

 

[Exterous]

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault- everything. It's Kenyan Mooslim Voodoo Timewarp Mind Control.

It certainly isn't all his fault but he sure hasn't done a damn thing to stop it and we do empower the President of the United States with a least some control and influence. Shit - even if he didn't have the clout to prevent it he could at least speak against it

 

[HumblePie]

Here's my take on this....

Think of those records similar to hospital visit records. If you go to a hospital then you have the option to ask the hospital to maintain secrecy of your visit. By asking that, a warrant would have to be issued to obtain that information. Otherwise a warrant is not required.

I think location and other "privacy" data records kept by phone companies should be afforded the same thing. If a user requests that certain data records collected by a business remain private, that the government would have to issue a warrant to collect that information. Otherwise it's fair game.

 

[Atreus21]

So disable Location services on your phone.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So disable Location services on your phone.

They triangulate based on tower location. The only solution is to not have a cell phone.

 

[Brainonska511]

Here's my take on this....

Think of those records similar to hospital visit records. If you go to a hospital then you have the option to ask the hospital to maintain secrecy of your visit. By asking that, a warrant would have to be issued to obtain that information. Otherwise a warrant is not required.

I think location and other "privacy" data records kept by phone companies should be afforded the same thing. If a user requests that certain data records collected by a business remain private, that the government would have to issue a warrant to collect that information. Otherwise it's fair game.

It shouldn't be an opt-in for privacy protection, it should be an opt-out.

 

[Darwin333]

Here's my take on this....

Think of those records similar to hospital visit records. If you go to a hospital then you have the option to ask the hospital to maintain secrecy of your visit. By asking that, a warrant would have to be issued to obtain that information. Otherwise a warrant is not required.

I think location and other "privacy" data records kept by phone companies should be afforded the same thing. If a user requests that certain data records collected by a business remain private, that the government would have to issue a warrant to collect that information. Otherwise it's fair game.

Before all this crap with the cops obtaining the information without a warrant most people had no clue that the phone companies were storing their location data. Besides, since when did we have to "opt in" for our 4th amendment rights?

 

[Jeff7]

It shouldn't be an opt-in for privacy protection, it should be an opt-out.

Yeah.
It won't happen though - way too much money to be made by keeping tabs on people. Better targeted advertising, at the very least.


Someone you don't know can keep pretty close tabs on you at all times. And people aren't concerned about this. Amazing.

"I have nothing to hide."

"Really? Ok, I'll just need some pictures of your kids, their names, your address, the name of their school, and any places where they might go to play unsupervised. I'll also need your full name, social security number, and bank information."

Suddenly they do have something to hide.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yeah.
It won't happen though - way too much money to be made by keeping tabs on people. Better targeted advertising, at the very least.

Of course. At the very least, these companies need to spell it out in very simple formatting (not buried in a 4 page contract) what they share and who they share it with and make it simpler to opt out.

Someone you don't know can keep pretty close tabs on you at all times. And people aren't concerned about this. Amazing.

"I have nothing to hide."

"Really? Ok, I'll just need some pictures of your kids, their names, your address, the name of their school, and any places where they might go to play unsupervised. I'll also need your full name, social security number, and bank information."

Suddenly they do have something to hide.

Not even just that. What if something you did was innocuous, but then someone decided to start some McCarthy-style 'investigation'. Your seemingly innocent activities might suddenly be associated with the next boogieman and your life could become a nightmare.

 

[Jaskalas]

Your dealings with a company are private. 5th Circus has betrayed the Constitution. Nothing new though, this country ignored the rule of law a long time ago. Our rights do not exist.

We must work to ensure super majority control of a Civil Liberties third party. To do anything less means that our nation has already fallen from within.

 

[Jimzz]

 

[HumblePie]

It shouldn't be an opt-in for privacy protection, it should be an opt-out.

While I agree to a point, it opens the door for all sorts of crap. Again, the law states business records. If you are viewed on a video tape by a business the police can ask for that tape without a warrant right now. Of course the business can refuse in which case the police need a warrant after that. Still it's a public capture of a business record for a person.

People can chose not to use cell phones, or only those cell phones that don't require to know the personal info of the person using the phone such as paid for by activation card phones.

I see the argument both ways here really.

 

[HumblePie]

Before all this crap with the cops obtaining the information without a warrant most people had no clue that the phone companies were storing their location data. Besides, since when did we have to "opt in" for our 4th amendment rights?

You didn't realize the type of data being collected by your cell phone use? Strange, because every cell phone contract written has that info in it. I guess you don't read those things do you?

Cell phone tracking is no different than public video surveillance in a way. It blows, but it's public after all. If people see you enter a building don't cops have the right to ask that person if they saw you enter the building? The difference is the cell phone company in this instance are the people that "see" where you have been going. They've even given you notice of there tracking through the signed contractual agreement cell users approve of when they get their phones.

The problem here is what is the expectation of privacy level? Here is the difference between the location meta data and the contact meta data the NSA has been collecting. Who I call and the content of that call I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. My location data while using a cell phone is not the same level of reasonable expectation to privacy unless I take steps to ask for that privacy.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I don't really care if they know where I am.

/flamesuit

 

[Brainonska511]

You didn't realize the type of data being collected by your cell phone use? Strange, because every cell phone contract written has that info in it. I guess you don't read those things do you?

Cell phone tracking is no different than public video surveillance in a way. It blows, but it's public after all. If people see you enter a building don't cops have the right to ask that person if they saw you enter the building? The difference is the cell phone company in this instance are the people that "see" where you have been going. They've even given you notice of there tracking through the signed contractual agreement cell users approve of when they get their phones.

The problem here is what is the expectation of privacy level? Here is the difference between the location meta data and the contact meta data the NSA has been collecting. Who I call and the content of that call I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. My location data while using a cell phone is not the same level of reasonable expectation to privacy unless I take steps to ask for that privacy.

I'm sure the wording a cell phone contract allows them to do anything from 'location tracking' for the purposes of it simply being a cellphone and doing network improvements and billing (eg: roaming) to giving out your information to business partners. They probably loosely word it to cover their ass.

And just because it's in a contract doesn't make it right. These contracts are very one-sided and you start to enter a Hobson's Choice scenario when you fall to the excuse 'it's in the contract'. Take it or leave it sounds like a poor choice to be able to participate in modern society.

Why is your location not a private concern? The USSC said that gps trackers for vehicles required a warrant in United States v Jones (2012) as that constituted a search. Why isn't it the same for cell-phone location data?

And they can collect more than just where you made calls. They can track where your phone was even when you aren't making calls, as it's still connected with their network.

I guess it's simply a case of: as long as they don't interfere with our 2nd amendment right to own guns, then screw the other amendments.

 

[Jeff7]

Of course. At the very least, these companies need to spell it out in very simple formatting (not buried in a 4 page contract) what they share and who they share it with and make it simpler to opt out.

And if they're feeling especially friendly, "opt-out" should not have to mean "You can't use our stuff at all."

Not even just that. What if something you did was innocuous, but then someone decided to start some McCarthy-style 'investigation'. Your seemingly innocent activities might suddenly be associated with the next boogieman and your life could become a nightmare.

Given how many laws we've got, and given how very open they are to interpretation, and given how some people in positions of power simply ignore them entirely, finding something will only be a matter of time.
Look at what happens with simple software programs: You still get bugs, because you told the compiler to do something that you didn't even know you were telling it to do.
Our body of legislation is huge. And look at what we have trouble with: Let's figure out what the Constitution and the Amendments mean. There's not a whole lot there.
4th Amendment: Right to be secure in your personal effects against unreasonable searches, unless there's a warrant for it.
That apparently has a lot of room for interpretation. Now let's throw millions of lines of legal text into the mix.
Yes, something incriminating can be found.

Likewise, in Friedrich Dürrenmatt's novella "Traps," which involves a seemingly innocent man put on trial by a group of retired lawyers in a mock-trial game, the man inquires what his crime shall be. "An altogether minor matter," replies the prosecutor. "A crime can always be found."

Link.

 

[Doppel]

Jeff7 is on the money. I will keep hounding this damn link until the cows come home:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/0...is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

You DO have something to hide. We all do. This is the treachery of a surveillance society, the fear of the knock on the door. You can never operate in a manner that ensure it doesn't happen.

If we are going to treat corporations as people I wonder if we can give them 4th amendment rights as well and thus they cannot be compelled to hand over whatever they are asked.

This argument feels very similar to the one of GPS put without a warrant on a drug dealers' car, but the evidence thrown because it was unconstitutional.

Our privacy will continue to erode. My hope is that enough slimy politicians get caught up in all their stupid shit that they get behind something like a new constitutional amendment that codifies the 4th in the information age.

 

[DCal430]

The supreme court had a chance to settle this issue with the GPS car tracking case, but failed to. They refuse to rule that warantless GPS tracking was unconstitutional, instead saying only that placing a GPS device on a car without a warrant, was not constitutional.

5 members refused to address the actual tracking by it self, 4 members said the tracking it self was unconstitutional.

 

[Doppel]

The supreme court had a chance to settle this issue with the GPS car tracking case, but failed to. They refuse to rule that warantless GPS tracking was unconstitutional, instead saying only that placing a GPS device on a car without a warrant, was not constitutional.

wut

 

[Vic Vega]

Yeh, it's all Obama's fault- everything. It's Kenyan Mooslim Voodoo Timewarp Mind Control.

He's the fucking President. Jesus Christ. You're so fucking partisan it's sick. This is not a left or right issue. You're a fucking joke.

Obama could stop all this shit AT ANY POINT.

 

[Doppel]

He's the fucking President. Jesus Christ. You're so fucking partisan it's sick. This is not a left or right issue. You're a fucking joke.

Obama could stop all this shit AT ANY POINT.

He could. He doesn't want to because he is another cast gear in the machine. I swear I heard today that since Obama took office there have been more charges of espionage than during all presidencies in history combined (Julian Assage said it, I presume it's true). He originally called whistleblowers the country's guard dogs.

 

[DCal430]

wut

You have two things.

1: Placing a GPS device on the car.

2: Using the GPS device.

They only said part 1 was unconstitutional, and since 1 was unconstitutional, there was no need to decide on 2.