Government May Now Track You Via Your Mobile Phone
from the wonderful dept
I almost hesitate to post this, because, undoubtedly the comments will take this story and mix it with the other big political controversy you might have read about concerning snooping on people without warrants. If possible, it would be nice if the comments didn't immediately fall into name calling and political bashing, and instead focused on the issues -- but somehow I doubt that will happen. Anyway, recently, the Department of Justice has been doing a bit of jurisdiction shopping in trying to get permission to get access to cell site data without a warrant in order to be able to track people. The first three courts they went to tossed out the request, often trashing the government's argument with phrases such as: "unsupported," "misleading," "contrived," and a "Hail Mary." Rather than appeal any of these cases and set a real precedent, the DOJ proceeded to simply file new cases in different locations. Three times in a row the judges tossed the case right out of the courtroom. Unfortunately, it looks like this isn't a case of three strikes and you're out. The EFF notes that, despite the first three denials, a new court has given the go ahead, and apparently wasn't concerned about how this might violate privacy rights. As the EFF notes, there's no one to appeal this ruling, meaning that there's now a big legal black hole for future attempts to do the same. Was it really that difficult to go get a search warrant? Update: A good article by Mark Rasch details the issues related to this story.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't assume privacy
If the government isn't listening & watching then it's some schmo with a camera on his foot trying to upskirt - or it's an employer monitoring Internet and email - or its a suspicious spouse who's hired a private eye - or its stores using "discount cards" to track purchases for datamining - not to mention the soon to be burgeoning RFID tags in everything.
As they all say, if you're not doing anything wrong then there's nothing to worry about, right?
As technology advances privacy will decrease ... and we can all be more "secure".
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't assume privacy
If these comments don't start to reflect some outrage, then it means people aren't paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't assume privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't assume privacy
Who gets to decide what constitutes �Doing something Wrong�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't assume privacy
Define "something"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paranoid? Get a Samsung phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paranoid? Get a Samsung phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define Something
For instance - alcohol. Ok, then not ok, then Ok again, then OK > 21.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gets to decide what constitutes "Doing somethi
AKA "The Man".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to put foil on your head...
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory. - Paul Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No need to put foil on your head...
> masses of information about millions
> of people. We're talking EXABYTES of
> information here!!!
Think of the data-gathering in this decade as a dry run. If Moore's Law keeps on going, those Exabytes will become manageable, and sooner not later. Astronomers already handle thousands of gigabytes of telescope data, and they don't have the Feds' budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One must remember...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One must remember...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One must remember... (formated)
Uuuhhh� Excuse me � where in the $#@^% Did you get that from?
Try reading the Constitution:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding documents are a restaint upon the power of government, and unless we stupidly hand over these rights to the government, WE retain them, including the right to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One must remember... (formated)
I am certainly secure in my person, house, papers, etc... whether someone is listening to my conversation or not. You come breaking down my door, taking my "papers", and threatening my person without proper warrants and probable cause, well... you're going to have to cope with my 2nd Amendment rights!
Let throw this out there though: If I'm outside talking on my mobile phone, and the government is "listening" to me using a super sensitive spy satellite, are my rights being violated? I would think not, since I'm in a public space. Therefore I generally view anything that leaves my body (sorry), including my own free speech, as being in the public domain. If you want it kept private, you should keep it to yourself!
That being said, some "papers" that I certainly would like kept private (whether they are in my posession or not), are all of my personal medical records. I'm WAY more concerned about the privacy of that information, than I am about any phone calls that I ever make!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One must remember... (formated)
Judging by too many cellphone talkers, the government will be the last to know.
Before the spysat can bounce that signal, everybody else around the cellphone talker at the theater, restaurant, or store
is already intimately aquainted with all the sordid details of their overly loud conversation.
Some cellphone users don't broadcast in the RF spectrum alone.
And it doesn't take any electronics to triangulate their location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search and seizure without a warrant and without p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think you're all missing the real issue here
The *real* issue, is that the govt is figuring out how to use their own process and procedure against itself (ie, hacking) by going to multiple courts to shop for answers. If the govt has realized that there are multiple authority granting entities, and that the path to their desired process can be obstacled and navigated with a 'path of least resistance' then that is the true problem. Moaning about cell tracking is moot, back when North America used AMPS it could be done with 3 scanners and a smart operator. Believe me ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i think you're all missing the real issue here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the real issue "Privacy" or "Trust"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royal perogative
What is it with the republicans and the presumption of 'royal privilege'. Midnight deals in Congress to extend the 'Patriot Act' for six month in hope we will forget and they can make it permanent. Keep your eyes open, they would smother liberty to win that next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's so bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]