White House Says Feds Should Have Unfettered Access To Mobile Phone Location Info

from the sigh dept

Wed, Mar 18th 2009 4:52pm — Mike Masnick

Many civil libertarians were hopeful that the Obama administration would be a lot more reasonable on certain issues, like warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of Americans. So far, that hasn't really been the case. The new administration has already sided with the old on the legality of warrantless wiretapping, and is now saying that it shouldn't need a warrant to demand location records from mobile phone providers. This certainly seems like the sort of private info that, under the 4th Amendment, would require a warrant, but not according to the administration(s). It feels that mobile phone providers should freely hand over records of what mobile phone tower any phone was connected to, even without the administration bothering to get a warrant (i.e., whenever and for whomever it wants to keep tabs on). This is tremendously problematic if you believe in the basic principles of the 4th Amendment. The EFF and the ACLU have asked a court to stop this practice, and it's rather disappointing that the administration is pushing in the other direction.

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: 4th amendment, civil liberties, location, privacy, white house

31 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Running Man, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:42pm

What the hell
What's next - make it mandatory that you carry and leave the cell on at all times?

BS.

Wont be too long before everyone is fitted with an under the skin GPS device, or better yet - an explosive collar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ann, 19 Mar 2009 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re: What the hell
  Actually, it will probably get much, much worse. Taking a cue from states such as Oregon, the feds are looking at mandating GPS be installed on all vehicles, ostensibly to provide information for a new road tax--the Dept. of Transportation is running a road user study with participants allowing GPS units that are monitored by the government to be installed in their vehicles. (Don't exprect the gasoline tax to go away either once a new road tax is imposed.) An added benefit will be that the government will have yet more ways of tracking you, if they so desire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dave, 20 Mar 2009 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: What the hell
  actually, thats exactly what those under-the-skin RFID tags are being developed for....they want them to be MANDATORY so they can track your info, your location, where you go, what you do, who you talk to, and most importantly, what you spend your money on as all transactions would be logged via the chip. no surprise that media outlets like FOX seem to think that this is a "good" idea...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Gawd and Master, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:44pm

Why I don't vote...
Cause they ALL promise Change but what we get is a change of faces with the exact same policies, etc. No surprises. Business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreamcaster, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:48pm

What else...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viking, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:51pm

Spam spam spam spam
Well, it is a matter of national security that we know who you are and where you are so that your cell phone can be spammed with all the latest ads.

"I see you are near our Starbucks - Come on in and we will treat you to a Grande Mocha Blah Blah"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:51pm

I say ok
I trust the Obama administration to use this practice in moderation. What I would like to see is a confidential record to be kept of every citizen and number warrant(lessly) wiretapped, with a FOIA type expiration date to be unsealed when requested years later. Obama already seems conscious of his legacy, and might thus seek to limit the number of false-positive wiretaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re: I say ok
  Obama already seems conscious of his legacy, and might thus seek to limit the number of false-positive wiretaps.
  
  We already have a legal procedure in place to address that concern: it's called "obtaining a warrant."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:14pm
  
  Re: I say ok
  Obama already seems conscious of his legacy,...
  
  I'm starting to think his legacy is going to be remembered as the administration that took the office of the Presidency to new heights of dishonesty and corruption. He's just getting warmed up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re: I say ok
    "'m starting to think his legacy is going to be remembered as the administration that took the office of the Presidency to new heights of dishonesty and corruption. He's just getting warmed up."
    
    Do you really think He can out do his predecessors ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I say ok
      Do you really think He can out do his predecessors ?
      
      He can try, and he's getting off to a good start.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jonnyq, 18 Mar 2009 @ 8:11pm
  
  Re: I say ok
  "I trust the Obama administration to use this practice in moderation"
  
  That's your first mistake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FLguy, 18 Mar 2009 @ 8:28pm
  
  Re: I say ok
  You trust the Obama administration to use this practice in moderation?? Are you serious? So were you ok when the Bush administration started down this path or did you get all ruffled over that? And if that bothered you it's now ok since Obama is doing it?
  
  I never have really trusted anything that comes out of a mouth in DC, and this administration certainly isn't helping thus far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TX CHL Instructor (profile), 19 Mar 2009 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: I say ok
  OMG. I hope this is just sarcasm (Poe?!?), and not just cluelessness.
  --
  www.chl-tx.com Thanks BHO, for the tremendous boost you have given my business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 5:55pm

Our founding fathers would shit a brick to see what has become of this country and our freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:04pm

Ok - Cool !
Lets publish the where-abouts of everyone on a website.
Then you could spell out stuff while driving around.
Most excellent!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreamcaster, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:04pm

What else...?
The Government can demand all they want. Just remember that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. We are millions and they are a couple hundred. We have forgotten that we LET these people run our lives.

What else do they think they can demand from us? "Big Brother" will always want an eye everywhere for "Total safety and security." But where do we draw the line? When do we as a people tell the Government that they no longer have the authority to pass such legislature without our permission?

This whole country has gone to shit and we need to fix it as a people and stop relying only on the Government to fix it for us. Yes, that's what they're here for, but the more power we give them, the more power they'll take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re: What else...?
  "We are millions and they are a couple hundred."
  
  They are a lot more than that. And they are well armed.
  
  "We have forgotten that we LET these people run our lives."
  
  We LET them because they force us. I'm far more afraid of them than I am of Al Queda. So i just keep my head down and try not to draw their attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nelson Cruz, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:05pm

You have to admit cell phone location info can be very useful information for law enforcement, and in some cases it can be time sensitive and therefore impractical to ask for a warrant first (a kidnapping for example). So, allowing the warrant to be filed after the fact (in time sensitive situations) would be reasonable. But warrantless access to this info could lead to real time monitoring of millions of people in the near future.

The moment president Obama finds out that someone at the NSA is tracking his daughters or his wife through their cell phones, he'll change his mind pretty quick. Similar things have happened here in Portugal and in Italy. Governments approved relaxed rules for phone tapping and the jailing of defendants while waiting trial, but then rushed to limit it when it was actually used on public officials and politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:11pm
  
  Re:
  "cell phone location info can be very useful information"
  
  for car insurance companies .... so they can charge you more
  
  "The moment president Obama finds out that someone"
  
  There will be a list of those not to be tracked
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There will be a list of those not to be tracked
    
    It always amazes me that some people don't seem to realize that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2009 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  So, allowing the warrant to be filed after the fact (in time sensitive situations) would be reasonable.
  Sort of like what the FISA court can already approve?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Comboman, 18 Mar 2009 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re:
  The moment president Obama finds out that someone at the NSA is tracking his daughters or his wife through their cell phones, he'll change his mind pretty quick.
  The President, his wife and daughters are protected by the secret service. They know where they are at all times, with or without a cell phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2009 @ 6:37am
  
  Re:
  So, allowing the warrant to be filed after the fact (in time sensitive situations) would be reasonable.
  That already exists.
  
  But warrantless access to this info could lead to real time monitoring of millions of people in the near future.
  Which is exactly what any sane person does NOT want. If you think real-time monitoring of people is a good thing I have a little book I want you to read, it is called Nineteen Eighty-Four.
  
  The moment president Obama finds out that someone at the NSA is tracking his daughters or his wife through their cell phones, he'll change his mind pretty quick. Similar things have happened here in Portugal and in Italy. Governments approved relaxed rules for phone tapping and the jailing of defendants while waiting trial, but then rushed to limit it when it was actually used on public officials and politicians.
  You don't seem that familiar with the way laws work in america. here, they take for bloody ever to get rid of laws that everyone hates (prohibition) and even ignoring that point laws should not be made in a style of throwing everything to see what sticks and then repeal it if it doesn't. Not to mention that it is a major violation of our constitution, you may have heard of it, it is a piece of paper that used to mean something here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nelson Cruz (profile), 19 Mar 2009 @ 6:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Anonymous Coward, that was exactly my point. This info should be available to law enforcement on a limited case by case basis, just like wiretapping. If unfettered access is granted it will lead to mass surveillance, which would be bad. I am familiar with 1984. I haven't read it, but have been meaning to for a long time.
    
    I'm also familiar with (and actually read :)) the US Constitution, and I totally agree with you. My point was, if Obama or anyone in government right now, is for unfettered surveillance via cell phones, they will likely change their minds when it gets abused - J. Edgar Hoover style - against them. This isn't an excuse to let them approve these laws, but rather something they should be reminded off, so they don't.
    
    Now that I think about it, a J. Edgar Hoover type scandal would be good for the US and the world right now. To stop all these ideas of unfettered surveillance and security above everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cap'n Jack (profile), 18 Mar 2009 @ 11:07pm

On the one hand, I'm glad McCain didn't win. On the other hand, I'm beginning to think it's almost the same shit, different race.

But how much change can one man really make? If he comes through on a quarter of his promises many, many promises, I think I'll be impresseed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Shmo, 19 Mar 2009 @ 5:12am

This is getting redonkulous
You blind followers of Hussien never seize to amaze me. Almost every single person he has appointed to office has been crooked in some way. Yet you trust him with this issue, which outraged you when it was the Bush admin? McCain wanted to tax health care benefiets which was horrible, now Obama wants to do the same and its a good idea right? If you think Bush was 1/4th as crooked as Obama, then you are either retarded, or need to stop watching CNN.
@Cap'n Jack, how much can one man do? I dont know, execute 10 times the normal amount of executive orders as any president in history by his 3rd month. Spend 10 trillion dollars by his third month. Pass any bill he wants with the current officials in office in the Senate and House.
This is a Stalinist dictatorship, if you think you weren't safe 4 months ago, hold on to your ass now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Raphone, 19 Mar 2009 @ 6:30am

Snoop on the opposition.
I guess the current administration wants to pull an Elliot Spitzer on all Americans. Snoop on the opposition and then find a means to destroy their reputation. How long will it take for the Government to require all citizens or persons visiting the Unites States to have a tracking device implanted. I do not want to seem like a Luddite but I see some technology as privacy's enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 Mar 2009 @ 7:26am

El Presidente!
Isn't it the president's job to be a puppet figure-head who distracts the sheeple from those actually in power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pmp888, 19 Mar 2009 @ 7:41am

Aw, come on Mike, you're smarter than this - it may "seem" like the sort of information the 4thAm would require a warrant to obtain, but you don't need to exaggerate what's actually being argued here. While it's worth debating what the proper standard should be for getting cell phone location data (whether it be tower info, or much more precise GPS information) from a mobile provider, the question of whether the 4th Amendment protects this information from disclosure without a warrant is different (and many courts over the years have held it doesn't). Looking at the "bumper beeper" cases, they don't find 4thAm interests implicated where the tracking is in public space; tower info is so imprecise that it really can't pinpoint your location in private areas. There's also a long line of cases finding that the 4thAm generally doesn't prohibit disclosure of information you've either handed over to third parties, or which was generated by the third party about you. Finally, it's worth noting that the issue here isn't between requiring a search warrant and having no standards, but rather, whether some other type of court order will suffice to obtain these records.

I don't mean to suggest that it's not worth debating what the standards ought to be for getting this information - it is - but then perhaps it would be worth a longer Techdirt post explaining why this information ought to be given greater protection than it has in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fred, 20 Mar 2009 @ 4:43pm

Big Bro-ther is in the House!
Tis no surprise here. The left claimed to have the moral high ground on privacy, but indeed, they are actually more interested in your business than W ever cared to be.

How else can they seize more of what you earn, if they can't electronically track you?

F'r instance, "use tax" on out of state purchases is only viable when there is an electronic audit trail for the tax board to use against the buyer. Try collecting that $.85 on paper, but collect that $85.00 over 100 purchases for the year, add on fines, and you've got a huge revenue source for spreading the wealth around. Isn't it convenient that Ebay now mandates Paypal? No more off-the-books income for the masses.

With GPS tracking, not only will it become easier for the state to assess virtual child support payments (an automatic lien on your person at 18% interest), but to establish state of residence (the better to tax you with) and trump you up on newly invented interstate commerce violations. Oh yes, they're coming. Imagine the cigarette cartons with RFID chips embedded...

Sure, it sounds paranoid. But we've come from a place where smoking was permitted everywhere, to a society where plastic bags are banned, dogs are lo-jacked, indian mascots and coke machines are evicted from school campuses, law enforcement officers lose their jobs ex-post-facto over misdemeanor domestic battery, and MSNBC can act as judge, jury and executioner for thought crimes.

Its only a matter of time before they come for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]