Should cell companies be required to release location information?

Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Text

Mobile phone companies would have to immediately turn over location data to emergency responders to help them quickly track missing persons, if any one of the four bills floating in the House get traction.

The law already allows, but does not automatically require, phone companies to turn over ping data from cell towers in emergency situations absent court warrants. The proposals would require telcos to promptly hand over the information if authorities tell them that harm or death are imminent.

At first glance, one might think the bills are a slippery slope toward requiring telcos to release such information during any criminal investigation, even when there is no pending emergency. But the Obama administration has jumped feet first into that slippery slope, and is seeking such information, without a court warrant, in a pending drug case.

The latest measures, which are basically the same to a varying degree, are in response to the Kelsey Smith murder in 2007. The 18-year-old girl of Kansas was kidnapped in 2007 and her body was found four days later in a nearby wooded area. She was discovered 45 minutes after Verizon released ping data from her cell phone, after days of haggling between Verizon and the authorities over whether the company must provide the information.

The proposals all are named in honor of the dead girl and are being pitched by Kansas representatives. The measures require disclosure of cell phone tower locations a phone has pinged, and do not include requirements that the company turn over call records or wiretap the phone.


Cell phone tower data does not pinpoint the location of a mobile phone like GPS data does, but does usually indicate which side of the tower the signal is coming from and how strong it is based on ?pings? sent when a handset checks in with the nearest tower or towers.

Susan Freiwald, a University of San Francisco School of Law privacy scholar, said the legislation makes sense. ?It?s not a bad idea to clarify that in an emergency situation, providers should disclose this,? she said. In non-emergency situations, she said, a warrant should be required ? a topic of one of her recent papers.

The leading measures by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) are similar to Kansas state legislation approved this year. Kansas is now the only state that requires mobile phone operators to immediately hand over cell tower ping information if the authorities assert that victims are facing imminent harm or death.

?It is an honor to have such an important piece of legislation that will save lives with Kelsey?s name on it. We continue to be amazed about the impact she has had on people here in Kansas and across the country,? said Kelsey?s father, Greg Smith.

The Kelsey Smith Act would ?require a provider of a commercial mobile service or an IP-enabled voice service to provide call location information concerning the user of such a service to law enforcement agencies in order to respond to a call for emergency services or in an emergency situation that involves risk of death or serious physical harm,? according to the bill text.

Another bill, by Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kansas) requires the government to train law enforcement officials ?with respect to the collection and use of call location information for emergency situations.? A fourth bill by Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) is almost exclusively dedicated to training the police on how to communicate with telephone carriers in emergency situations.

I do not like this legislation at all. Yes, it can be useful but I don't like that it can be done without a court's warrant for the information. This is similar to the PATRIOT Act allowing the government to detain "suspected terrorists" without any kind of formal charges. It's a very slippery slope that has already had cases where it's come up (and per this link Obama's administration supports it being used for non-emergency situations).
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Isnt this the kind of data that Liberals were complaining about being released saying it is a violation of privacy and they basically said it constituted spying on private citizens?

On the other hand, is this covered by the Homeland Security Laws?

I can see this being a problem if you call the police and you have a heart attack or someone is after you. However, normally 911 can pinpoint you. Cell phones are kind of tricky unless they have a built-in GPS. I am guessing multiple cell towers can triangulate or something like that.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To a certain extent, this is simply a rehash of the Alan Desawitz argument, a terrorist will blow something up in 30 minutes killing millions of innocent civilians unless we can locate them now now now. It happens eight times a week on television dramas and the good guys come to the rescue with seconds to spare every time.

In real life, does it ever occur?

And if it does, its seldom now now now. With existing law permitting a court order based on evidence that is a reasonable compromise to protect the privacy right of you and me in the process.

The other abuse that occurs is that too often, that evidence presented to a judge is doctored or dubious in the extreme. And when it results in a giant opps we raided the wrong house, the legal system does not punish those that gave dubious or doctored testimony.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,158
12,821
136
Is it that hard to get a warrant for location information on someone who is reported missing?
 

AMDMaddness

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,406
2
81
They already provide this information when there is a warrant or court order. Most of the time they are notified in advance that these steps are being taken and they go ahead and pull this info and hand it over when the papers arrive with little to no delay. They do not just give out info..... some times people don't want to be found and some people have no legal right to know where that person is.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,431
33,018
136
It should be an opt in/out service. Customers who wish to have this type of information be made available should be able to opt into the system. For those who prefer privacy, a court order issued before the release is the way to go.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Another stupid law. They're pretending that a Judge isn't just a phone call away that can issue a warrant or court order within minutes. They just want carte blanche to check on the locations of anyone at a whim, with no probable cause or need. Screw em.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
As long as there is a court order AND the cell phone company is shielded from my civil litigation, I wouldn't have a problem with this.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: piasabird

Cell phones are kind of tricky unless they have a built-in GPS.

I am guessing multiple cell towers can triangulate or something like that.

No built in GPS is NOT needed.

In fact phones without built in GPS are better at location tracking because do not rely on Satellites which is useless indoors.

I spent nearly 4 years installing the location tracking system throughout most of the U.S.

Simply look up the company TruePosition of you want to learn more.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,158
12,821
136
Originally posted by: Patranus
As long as there is a court order AND the cell phone company is shielded from my civil litigation, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

Why would they need additional shielding from civil litigation? There would be a court order (warrant) requiring them to turn over the information. There would be no need to have additional shielding in place, as the warrant alone would shield them from litigation.

edit:
I'm speaking how it currently stands. I do not support legislation that allows for bypassing the warrant system. In cases like the events described in the original post, it should be easy enough to obtain a warrant quickly (ie: judge-on-call to sign off on warrants).
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Yea, after reading the posts in this thread, I'll have to agree with the majority. A court order should be necessary.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,968
140
106
check the fine print on your cell phone agreement. privacy is not guaranteed under any situation. your using an RF device subject to cell repeater tracking and logging.
 

AMDMaddness

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,406
2
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: piasabird

Cell phones are kind of tricky unless they have a built-in GPS.

I am guessing multiple cell towers can triangulate or something like that.

No built in GPS is NOT needed.

In fact phones without built in GPS are better at location tracking because do not rely on Satellites which is useless indoors.

I spent nearly 4 years installing the location tracking system throughout most of the U.S.

Simply look up the company TruePosition of you want to learn more.

Ah Yes TruePosition.... I'm sure you prob installed half of my equipment (Cingular/at&t in MS and SC) I must say they work great except for the fact the LMU units fail constantly and they are very very picky with GPS antennas and antenna lines and almost always have some sort of timing issue. Why can't the LMU overide the GPS cords? why does the System have to tell it where its at when the LMU has the Antenna?? I love the way they run off of spread sheets for a data base and they seem to use 20yr old unix as a platform. They are getting better with software V10.1 they actually fail less. TP is doing software 10.8 update this weekend and I am stuck doing the call testing .. hummm love calling 911 at 2am.

Pete
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: AMDMaddness
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: piasabird

Cell phones are kind of tricky unless they have a built-in GPS.

I am guessing multiple cell towers can triangulate or something like that.

No built in GPS is NOT needed.

In fact phones without built in GPS are better at location tracking because do not rely on Satellites which is useless indoors.

I spent nearly 4 years installing the location tracking system throughout most of the U.S.

Simply look up the company TruePosition of you want to learn more.

Ah Yes TruePosition.... I'm sure you prob installed half of my equipment (Cingular/at&t in MS and SC) I must say they work great except for the fact the LMU units fail constantly and they are very very picky with GPS antennas and antenna lines and almost always have some sort of timing issue. Why can't the LMU overide the GPS cords? why does the System have to tell it where its at when the LMU has the Antenna?? I love the way they run off of spread sheets for a data base and they seem to use 20yr old unix as a platform. They are getting better with software V10.1 they actually fail less. TP is doing software 10.8 update this weekend and I am stuck doing the call testing .. hummm love calling 911 at 2am.

Pete

Yes Pete. The LMU's had even earlier problems but they're still getting better as well as the software getting better.

Remember the harsh conditions these things are operating in. They do pretty well considering.

If you have a good installation (no water can get in the connectors, clear open area for the GPS antenna, good tight connections for good signal levels on every port) they are very good.

The system has to tell the LMU were it's at for a reference point. Have you ever fat fingered an entry in the database (spreadsheet) and have the system think the LMU is suddenly in China or something? Funny as hell.

They ran the upgrade through the 1,400 of them I have here at the moment but I have to download the software to around 120 of them myself during the Maintenance Window.

It was a well developed system. It has saved many lives already. Hell within a week of having the system up in a market I was installing it found a woman that had kidnapped her child in a custody dispute. She left Florida and I picked up her phone in Lousiana. Troopers got her in 10 minutes.

Unfortunately this system can be used for nefarious purposes by our government too :(

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I can see it now. Law suite -- "My father died from a heart attack because you could not get a warrant signed by a judge?"
 

totalnoob

Golden Member
Jul 17, 2009
1,389
1
81
Seems like a good idea for 9-11 calls at least. It would suck if your car crashed in an unfamiliar part of the country one night and you had no hope of telling the rescuers how to find you.. It makes sense to give emergency responders the ability to find people calling 911 from cell phones..but of course it is a slippery slope.
 

AMDMaddness

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,406
2
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
I can see it now. Law suite -- "My father died from a heart attack because you could not get a warrant signed by a judge?"

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Seems like a good idea for 9-11 calls at least. It would suck if your car crashed in an unfamiliar part of the country one night and you had no hope of telling the rescuers how to find you.. It makes sense to give emergency responders the ability to find people calling 911 from cell phones..but of course it is a slippery slope.

When you call 911 they have your lat and long plus your cell number and the address of the cell site plus the cell phone provider you called from even before they answer the phone, its automatically sent with each 911 phase 2 call no warrant or court order needed.