Court Says Feds Need A Warrant To Listen To Touchtone Beeps Too
from the beep-boop-bop-beep-beep-beep-beep dept
While there are still arguments over the legality of the government's warrantless wiretap program, apparently there's been a separate court case looking at whether or not a warrant is needed if the authorities are just listening to your touchtone dialing, rather than the contents of the call itself. The feds felt that if it was just the touchtone beeps, then they didn't need any warrant at all -- but a court has now shot that theory down. The feds tried to claim that such data was not "content" which would trigger the need for a warrant -- but considering that with today's touchtone IVR systems, such data could include passwords, PINs, social security numbers and other private data, it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest a warrant is necessary.
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
Filed Under: touchtones, warrants, wiretap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Call me
That is my phone number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If its PRIVATE they need a WARRANT
If it is not a public place, they need a warrant to observe. If its not analogous to a public place, they need a warrant to observe. If its something protected by the a Constitutional Amendment, they need a warrant!
4th Amendment: "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."
Courts have been taking "papers" to include mail, and once that evolved to telephone calls and e-mail they included those in the protections as well making "communication" protected by the 4th Amendment.
The *only* exception is that they can look at who it was going to, since for mail that would be on the envelope, "in public" view. All that means is they can look at the telcom log and see the number dialed out to.
The courts will slam this down in the end. Lord knows the appellate court will look like asshats if they let it go forward but if it keeps going this is the kind of case the SCOTUS will take and set right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If its PRIVATE they need a WARRANT
90 percent of cops are dicks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If its PRIVATE they need a WARRANT
Best first sentence of a post, ever. Certainly best of any post that quotes an ammendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O RLY ?
@usmcdvldg - I think to be fair the ratio is probably the other way around - and no, I am not a copper.
To be honest I think the button presses on a tone dial phone could be far more damaging for you than any conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]