What Should Be Allowed When It Comes To Mobile Phone Snooping?

from the unclear-rules dept

Mon, May 8th 2006 12:24pm — Mike Masnick

When you use your mobile phone, you are revealing data to your mobile operator about where you are, and who you're calling or being called by. That, obviously, can be interesting information for folks in law enforcement -- but the rules over what it takes to access that data are extremely unclear. That's resulted in the government often filing requests for such data in a variety of different courts until they found a judge who would say okay (after a bunch of judges ridiculed the requests). All of this follows the FBI promising that such data would never be used for tracking, when laws were put in place concerning the collection of this data. Now, however, those in the industry are getting concerned about all of these requests and the complete lack of clear rules. So, they're asking Congress to step in and clarify what's expected of them when law enforcement asks for phone usage data. The article includes the inevitable quote from a law professor who doesn't understand why this is an issue at all: "What's all the fuss? The government has legitimate reasons to follow people. This is the technology law enforcement needs to use to get probable cause to search you, arrest you and throw you in jail." Right, and we're sure this data has never been misused, right? Next he'll be saying that old standard, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

J. R. Black, 8 May 2006 @ 12:53pm

Snoop
When concerning national secrurity, snooping should be allowed on anything suspicious or anyone suspected of being a threat to the American people or the structure of our systems of justice and government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ted Smith, 8 May 2006 @ 12:55pm

Networking: The network is 'aware'
CHICAGO, May 8 (UPI) -- Integrating disparate data and voice networks -- broadband, mobile phone and WiFi -- into one unified network is promising to be a foremost technology trend in the next few years, one that could lead to totally personalized telecom services, experts tell UPI's Networking.

Experts at Gartner Inc., the IT research consultancy, indicate that by 2010 at least 40 percent of U.S. companies will have completely integrated their entire voice and data networks into a single network, and 95 percent of all large and mid-size firms will have at least started the process to do so. By Gene Koprowski
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeke, 8 May 2006 @ 1:00pm

Privacy Vs Security
That is what all of this will come down to. People that want less crime will give up more and more privacy until they are no better than sheep. OTOH, it is natural for people to abuse power, and then you need someone to watch the watchers. I think it is great that Big Cell companies are asking for clarification, and hope that some sort of common sense is used. Hopefully the same laws that govern probable cause for property/personal searches. Here's hoping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rev. Dr. Damon J. Thrion D.D.,Phd., 8 May 2006 @ 1:00pm

Re: Snoop
I'm sure Daniel Ellsberg would agree. [/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2006 @ 1:17pm

Hey, JR, whose definition of "national security" are you using? Because MY definition says that people as stupid as you should be locked up indefinitely because your immature and moronic opinions pose a risk to everyone...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MissingFrame, 8 May 2006 @ 1:18pm

Re: Snoop
It's suspicious that anyone would drive anywhere going the exact speed limit, so we should monitor speeds and tag all those going at or lower than the speed limit as "possible terrorists" and give all those going over the speed limit a ticket for speeding :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 8 May 2006 @ 1:19pm

Re: Snoop
J. R. Black wrote: When concerning national secrurity, snooping should be allowed on anything suspicious or anyone suspected of being a threat to the American people or the structure of our systems of justice and government.

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.

If your government agency cannot show clear probable cause, as laid out above, they have no business snooping, national security be damned. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is squeaky clean. Not you, not me, not your dear, sweet grandmother. Not on your life. If a sufficiently motivated government agent were allowed to spy on you unrestrained by the 4th amendment, you can be sure he could find enough questionable material to lock you under the jail. Grandma, too.
The 4th is meant to be an impediment to law enforcement, because the alternative is tyranny. I believe this completely and wholeheartedly, and I believe those who would circumvent this, or any, constitutional protection are more of a threat to the American people, our structures, and our systems of justice, than a thousand Osamas could ever hope to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kerry, 8 May 2006 @ 1:33pm

Re: Snoop
You are what I call a sheepole.
You do not think for yourself like you claim to.
For example......
I am entitled as is every American to my privacy. That includes who I talk to, or where I talk to them from.
The laws need to be defined much more clearly for our protection. People, like you, need to quit giving up our constitutional rights just because someone (BUSH) says it is for national security.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
X Jar HEad, 8 May 2006 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Snoop
10-4 good buddy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank, 8 May 2006 @ 2:29pm

Re: Snooping
But you all know that the government spies will get any power they want. All they have to say is "to protect the children".

End of story and bye-bye civil rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D. Sanders, 8 May 2006 @ 2:29pm

Re: Privacy Vs Security
I agree with you. When everyone is safe, no one will be free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moogle, 8 May 2006 @ 3:16pm

National Security my arse. Our nation is not some frail and fragile thing that needs to watched over by covert and clandestine 'protectors'.

The only security this protects is the security of the people in office against anyone they dislike or fear.

So the ruling political party should be allowed to snoop on the competition? The police should be allowed to snoop on their blackmail victims, err, I mean suspects? You think this isn't happening? Won't happen? How will you know? They sure as hell aren't even letting us know who they're investiagting, and they're doing their damndest to prevent judges from knowing or even being able to say 'no'.

The biggest threat to americans are the people who use the cover of 'protection' to secure their own corrupt power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Faz, 8 May 2006 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Snoop
always remember: who will guard the guards. so national security yes. but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2006 @ 4:29pm

Thats just another reason for police to harrass people and to do as they wish without propable cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jared, 8 May 2006 @ 4:34pm

Its all a bunch of god dam opinions, get over yourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bloody Chipmunk, 8 May 2006 @ 5:50pm

Re: Snoop
You're a bloody lunatic m8!

Human beings are a naturally paranoid bunch. Let's go ahead and open up the flood gates to fuel that paranoia by making it legal for [unknown persons] to not only track your location, but your conversations (any of which could be deemed suspicious by an agent who was having a bad day)

Why don't you just install a webcam in your face so you can be tracked, watched, listened to, and logged like a robot clone?

I suppose you go along with the property seizure laws which are also ludicrous and unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2006 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Privacy Vs Security
Even after no one is free, we still will not be safe. If we were there would be no reason to keep us from our freedom.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2006 @ 11:29pm

Jared go re-read the 4th amendment eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]