Mobile Operators Responded To An Astounding 1.3 Million Requests For Subscriber Info
from the you-have-no-privacy dept
We've talked for a while about just how often law enforcement seeks information from mobile operators -- often without getting any actual warrant -- knowing that it was astounding. But after an article from a few months ago in the NY Times noting that it was both routine and a big business for mobile operators, who charge law enforcement for each request, Rep. Ed Markey asked all of the major mobile operators just how often they get requests from law enforcement for subscriber info, and discovered that last year they responded to an astounding 1.3 million requests for subscriber info -- including location info, text messages and other data. And, apparently, this number likely undercounts the true size, because it notes that there was "incomplete record-keeping" in some cases. Oh yeah, and also, this just requests, not individuals -- a single request might include multiple people whose information was being sought. So, an awful lot of people were spied on this way.Not surprisingly, the number of requests continues to rise drastically, with AT&T admitting that it had seen a tripling in requests in the last five years. As the report notes:
AT&T alone now responds to an average of more than 700 requests a day, with about 230 of them regarded as emergencies that do not require the normal court orders and subpoena.... Sprint, which did not break down its figures in as much detail as other carriers, led all companies last year in reporting what amounted to at least 1,500 data requests on average a day.This isn't a huge surprise, but does raise significant questions about how reasonable these information trawling operations are. Do we honestly believe that law enforcement needed all of that info? This seems like a case where, of course, if the info is easy to get, law enforcement wants it. But is that reasonable?
And, telcos have little incentive to stand up for the rights of their users. They actually make money from these kinds of requests:
AT&T, for one, said it collected $8.3 million last year compared with $2.8 million in 2007, and other carriers reported similar increases in billings.For a company that large, this isn't a major cash cow, but it is something. It's unclear how carefully the telcos review the request. At least one (smaller) telco, C Spire Wireless, reported that it had rejected about 15% of the requests, but most of the other operators didn't provide any info on rejections (and it makes you wonder if they ever rejected any requests at all).
None of this is surprising. When such a tool is available, it's almost impossible for it not to be abused. It's just too easy for law enforcement to snoop on anyone's location or text messages, and they can't resist doing so. It seems like telcos (1) could be a lot more transparent about this. While Google and Twitter both have voluntarily opened up to provide data on law enforcement requests, the only reason this info became public from the mobile operators was because of Markey's request. On top of that, it seems that the rules concerning an individual's privacy rights should also be a lot clearer, to give the telcos more ammo to push back against bogus requests.
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: ed markey, law enforcement, location data
Companies: at&t, c spire wireless, sprint
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
$8.3 million last year
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $8.3 million last year
On the other hand assuming 700/day (excluding weekends) that works out to about $45/request billed by ATT.
Apparently, ATT can give out my service details a damn sight cheaper than the actual service...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this serves to prove is that your privacy may be violated at any time by the telcos if law enforcement waves enough cash in front of their noses. Big brother is indeed watching you ...and selling your private info to the highest bidder. Owning a mobile phone seems like a dangerous thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That number may sound high, but considering that we have around 2.2 million people in jail or prison, it doesn't surprise me at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
Home of the free, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're not trying to hide something,why would it be dangerous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Easy cop-out. So you don't mind if I snoop around in your house? After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I am trying to hide something -- just not criminal behavior. I'm trying to hide every last bit of data that I can from corporations & the government (but I repeat myself).
It's called "privacy". It's an important thing to do since history (even recent US history) teaches us with certainty that this data will be abused in a way that is harmful to us all.
And even if it wasn't going to be abused, I claim privacy under the well-known "it's none of your damn business" rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all, if you're not guilty of something, you should have no trouble matching actions with words, since according to you the only reason someone would want to keep their privacy is to hide wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least they sometimes send an advertisement my way that I might enjoy.
The government though?
*pulls out a flamethrower*
Time to get to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As long as everyone doesn't have a problems with these type of invasions, they will only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think your percentage wrt the government is way too low. Nonetheless:
Chances are about 100% that I can choose not to share any information with Google. Chances are about 0% that I have the same option with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but - Terrists Everwhere!
Do you honestly believe in this day and age in "The Land Of The Free" (it's very hard to write that with and be serious) that for even one femtosecond that law enforcement care in the slightest what you think?
It's called a Police State. Please! Get used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but - Terrists Everwhere!
Point of Order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But, but - Terrists Everwhere!
Whoosh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With Editing error
I goofed. I wanted to edit it to "it's very hard to write that and be serious", but I missed deleting "with".
So just ignore the "with" and get on with doing something useful in your life. OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people court cases will then fall apart, and convicts get let freed or need to be retried without the cell phone evidence against them?
This is a VERY expensive problem as well as a violation of privacy. The sooner such a problem is fixed the better and cheaper it is for the government and tax payer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you are down to something like 800,000 requests. It's about 255 per 100,000 population. Now you can go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
and you can see the major crime rates in those cities. Since almost every citizen in the US carries a cell phone, and may have had that phone with them at the time, and may have had it on them at the time of their arrest, it's not unreasonable for an investigator to want to look at the call history for that person.
When you look at the true numbers, the actual number of requests appears shockingly low. It would appear that authorities are being careful here.
Oh well, another Techdirt rant blown into the weeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To you. To me, the numbers appear shockingly high and indicative that while they aren't casting the broadest net they possibly can, they're not exactly being "careful."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By proxy, this is a form of censorship, with the capabilities that smart phones offer these days the access methods of communication, being forced to choose to communicate or protect my privacy........is censorship, by proxy
Imagine a world where all future communication devices are setup to SPY on their users..........having to imagine that future is getting easier by the day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is only because our information is available that anyone notices that our privacy is at risk.
Prior to the internets, few people raised such a stink because, let's face it, there wasn't a whole lot of information available as easily as today.
Frankly, it's much ado about nothing. If you have a problem with putting your information out there, then don't. And certainly don't expect a corporation to protect your information...on the contrary, they will use it for all it is worth....literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is tantamount to saying that if you don't want to be subject to unwarranted searches, then stop being a part of society.
I think that's a destructive message. It's better to change the behavior of the oppressors than the oppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one would think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.S.
If our forebears were this daft, police would have been spying on our phone lines without warrants as soon as they became popular. They'd have been spying on your mail without a warrant too.
That they are common means accessing information about them and their users makes things easier for police, but not having access does not make solving crimes any harder than before cell phones existed. These claims about "need" are a crock of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't AT&T Wireless a govt sponsored monopoly?
I'm contracting with AT&T to provide me with best-effort mobile communications service and compensate them handsomely for it. So yes, I do expect them to vigorously protect my privacy from everyone including themselves. They are not giving me a heavily discounted or free service such as those provided by Google and others - so yes, I do expect them to protect my data and not relinquish it to anyone, including law enforcement, without a legitimate warrant. Otherwise it's no different from indiscriminate searches, which we are protected against by the U.S. constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So yeah, the quote is spot on, they know they can get away with it, because people simply don't have a choice about it, it's either put up with it, or do without entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How it Really Works
1. We had a copious set of procedures that we followed for different kinds of requests - which come from every imaginable branch of law enforcement at the federal, state, county and municipal level.
2. We pushed back on law enforcement all the time. Every day. It's not hard to do.
3. Most of the time, information is only provided in response to a subpoena or court order. The egregious stuff - wiretaps, contents of communications, etc. - isn't provided unless very specific procedures are followed by law enforcement, including specific types of court orders.
4. The exception to this is the "emergency" requests where a warrant is not required. These are always location information - phone records can wait for an order or subpoena, and contents of communications must have an order. Law enforcement typically wants this info to follow up on a crime in progress; we dealt with it in several kidnapping cases. Again, we would routinely push back on law enforcement if it sought too much info or it wasn't emergent and very time-limited.
5. We only charged law enforcement for setting up wiretaps and pen registers (which again, we only did with a very specific type of court order) because those involved real costs to us each time. We viewed the rest - my time and the time of my subpoena compliance folks - as a cost of doing business. It appears from the NYT article that this remains the practice for carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]