Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant 216
mi writes: A new ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found by a margin of 9-2 that law enforcement does not need to get a warrant to grab your cell phone's location records. The justices ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for your location when you're using a cell phone. This decision (PDF) was based on a case in which a man was convicted of robbery after months of location data was given to authorities by his cell phone carrier, MetroPCS. Police got the information using a court order, rather than a warrant, because there were less stringent requirements involved. One of the judges wrote: "We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage."
Which is why we disguise cell towers (Score:2)
Because nothing says Easy To Know Where They Are like making them look like trees, or fancy arches, or painting them dull colors so they don't look obvious.
Thank god my state has a State Constitution which says there is no excuse not to get a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused what dressing up cell towers as X has to do with the subject at hand.
Unless you want to make either A. the argument that if only cell towers looked like cell towers, you'd know when to turn your cell phone 's radio off (completely) so as to avoid being tracked; because you definitely leave your cell phone on if you can't see a cell tower, or B. the argument that people think their cell phones work via the power of magic if they can't see anything that looks like a cell tower; if they even know
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The ruling is based on a false premise.
I know what they look like, I've coded GIS software for cell providers, I even know what most of the hidden ones look like, and how the log files work (since I used them), but most people think it's a magic device powered by fairy dust that doesn't track them until they "turn it on" (it's actually on unless you specifically power it off).
Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I was under the impression that my private business with my cellular phone provider was just that, private, and without a warrant this information in the form of 'papers and effects' was supposed to be subject to 4th Amendment protections unless sought via warrant process...
Let's see, how does that go? Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo?
We seem to be at Jury...and it's not going well.
What's that other one? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Hmm, what to do, what to do...?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers (Score:4, Insightful)
It's so cute that people still think that actually means something.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
A reread is not a waste of time...
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ [ushistory.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
Why would I do that?
I am not afraid to say what I think.
They can only hurt one of me.
Strat
Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers (Score:4, Insightful)
"America is at that awkward stage: too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that a Republican or a different Democrat would have cared more about our [ha ha ha] rights?
Oh, we, absolutely (Score:2)
And by "we", of course you mean the tiny, tiny minority that isn't... sitting in front of their television, a string of drool trailing from their partially open mouths, while the latest reports of Kim Kardassian's antics reflects from the their glazed eyes and the Doritos grease spots around their mouth. Or the deluded information-poor who consume Faux News broadcasts as if they were (cough) actual journalism.
Metaphorically speaking, little tiny soapboxes located at huge distances from one another, that no
Re: (Score:2)
If the data belong to the cell company, then why is a warrant not required to get them from that company?
Seems that would be hard to do, demonstrating probable cause that the company plans to shoot Charlie H, using the alias Mohammed.
Re:Which is why we disguise cell towers (Score:4)
The court never needs a warrant to _ask_ for information. They need a warrant to have the request backed by force. If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed. If they choose not to comply, then a warrant may get issued and the data will be taken forcibly.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed.
Which companies voluntarily turn over customer location data to the police? Please name names.
Re: (Score:3)
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
From AT&T's page [att.com]:
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
With other companies and entities, to:
Comply with court orders and other legal process
Re: (Score:2)
If the cellphone company chooses to comply with the court order, no warrant is needed.
Which companies voluntarily turn over customer location data to the police? Please name names.
AT&T. Verizon. T-Mobile (sometimes, anyway).
Sprint allegedly isn't quite as accommodating, but you never know in an age where "they" know all and demand that you know nothing. But we do know that AT&T has provided the courtesy of a full-time locked room that's essentially US Government property right in the middle of their own premises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From AT&T's page [att.com]:
Some examples of who we share your Personal Information with:
With other companies and entities, to:
Comply with court orders and other legal process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, my bad. You meant "companies should have privacy policies that prevent the company from releasing the data without a warrant". Not quite how I read what you said. Carry on :)
Re: (Score:2)
Most (?) cell phone companies have explicit privacy policies, which should both prevent them from releasing customer data unless legally required (i.e. a warrant), and at the same time give the customer a reasonable expectation of privacy. The king (11th Circuit) has no clothes.
The wording I have seen usually states that they can release information to comply with police requests.
They don't say that it has to be a warrant and I think most of them just give it over freely to police without
much hassle if it's a legitimate request with or without a warrant. Besides that, police are trained on how
to make a "polite request" look like something a person has to comply with and in most cases it's easier
to comply than to pay a lawyer to decide if you are required to comply. Also, if they
Re: (Score:2)
...The king (11th Circuit) has no clothes.
and impressive testicles...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. As soon as Bushitler is out of the White House, President Barack Obama will get rid of all these fascist laws. He's a constitutional scholar.
Re: (Score:2)
The president can't get rid of existing laws. That's congress, and (because they usurped the power to do so), the courts. Learn how the system works. Then you might have some chance of making relevant commentary and/or writing accurate sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
You're as much a customer as a product. You are provided service and your *basic* customer data is protected.
But more advanced data - like data usage, profile of usage, tracking information, network of contacts, all that "meta" stuff - is a product you manufacture and they sell or use to optimize their service (read: give you less, get you to pay more). And the police can just request free access to that product.
Just stupid (Score:2)
From TFS:
In other words, we assert you probably know your privacy is being violated by existing technical means, so we'll just ignore the obvious constitutional instructions about warrants when dealing with personal information -- whereabouts, in this instance. Because the constitution is abused and/or ignored by most judges now, so that's ok, right? R
Re:Just stupid (Score:5, Informative)
I read the decision. Go read the first few pages (linked in TFS). It makes perfect sense to me.
What do you think happened here? The cops didn't just go mining some random guy's cell signal.
They already had tons of evidence against the guy. Eyewitness testimony. Camera footage of the armed robberies (someone matching his description). DNA evidence collected from the getaway car. The government presented this to a federal magistrate who said it constitutes reasonable grounds for the government to seize the phone records that are relevant and material to the case.
And the only data they got was, for the specific two month period the armed robberies were underway, this one person's call records, limited to phone number, data/time/duration, incoming or outgoing, and the cell tower location. No call contents. No text message contents. No keep-alive packets or other location tracking data when the phone was powered but not making or receiving a call. No GPS data. Just enough to say "we know the suspect was in this mile and a half radius making a phone call near the time of the robbery."
So what do you think is the problem?
Were there not reasonable grounds to authorize the order? Not enough evidence? Were the phone records not relevant to the case? Do you think too much information was seized?
I'm genuinely curious as to where you think the government overreach occurred in this case, or if you just think the government should never be able to seize or search anything for any reason.
Means isn't the issue here (Score:2)
Technically, no.
For the government, as it is explicitly constrained from legitimately doing so by the constitution, yes, it is something special.
Who can get what (Score:2)
The federal and state governments have more constraints than you do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is. Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
Re:This seems batshit crazy. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had a ham radio connected to a GPS receiver that'd be a different matter, but as a cell user I'm not broadcasting for all to hear. There are laws about that actually, there are bits of analog spectrum that it's still illegal to listen to because at one time telephone conversations happened on those frequencies in clear analog.
Re: (Score:2)
You're broadcasting to pretty much anyone. Roaming is, or at least used to be, a thing. Even if it's not turned on, I know my cell phone at least tells me that it can dial 911 using another network even when it's out of range of mine. So yes it's talking to a lot more than just the one provider...same with wireless access points that broadcast their name (or wifi devices that constantly search for them).
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and the cellular carrier (unless your business arrangement says otherwise) is allowed to divulge that information to a court on request - aka a court order. (Even if your arrangement does say otherwise, it seems unlikely a court would enforce a provision that requires the company to refuse court orders that are not warrants...)
Re:This seems batshit crazy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Any person with sufficiently sensitive equipment can essentially intercept any transmission, and discover a whole lot that isn't an explicit transmission. By this logic, we cannot legally expect to defend any form of privacy once it is compromised. That certainly appears to be the realpolitik, but it doesn't have to be accepted or defended. It certainly isn't justified by the fact that sound and light waves can be perceived by ears and eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but it's overly simplistic. Rights and technology are orthogonal. The record is hardly a progression of the powerful using new technologies to trample our rights; it's hardly the opposite either. Rights are demanded, and taken, by threat of loss of legitimacy for the powerful who refuse us those rights; they're lost when that threat is unsupportable. It may be that technology and disparity of power have advanced to the point that that threat is empty now, in
Re: (Score:3)
'broadcasting' in the tech sense, yes, but NOT in the usual PUBLIC SENSE. convenient that you leave that part out.
to get your location, special equipment that The Public can't get (!) is needed. how is this 'broadcasting' then? its encrypted AND locked down so that only special people can see or tune it. that does not meet the definition of 'telling everyone around you where you are'. just the opposite!
why do you hate america and freedom? or, are you just trollin' ?
we can't answer this question, but t
Re: (Score:2)
If you walk down a public street, you might not have a conversation with everyone on the street. But that doesn't mean if the cops ask a random guy if they saw you that they can't say "yes", or the guy you bought a hot dog from, etc...
A surprising number of people trust the police to have good intentions when they're trying to find someone...and you know what, if the cops came to my door and asked if I've seen a guy around the neighborhood with such-and-such description, I'm pretty sure I'd give them a pro
Re:This seems batshit crazy. (Score:4, Informative)
you're an idiot, then. only an idiot talks to cops unless under arrest.
talking to a cop can ruin your life even if you are fully innocent and have the best intentions. go watch the famous youtube video 'dont talk to cops'. you need to learn a few things.
oh, and btw, they train cops to lie and to weasel info out of you. its formal training. they know the game. shame that you are still ignorant of how its played.
btw, who DO I know that the cop is not trying to seek revenge against someone? lets say you are in a black neighborhood and a cop comes looking for a guy. you going to just give that info out? really?
bad idea all around. this is what warrants are for. get a warrant and we'll talk, but not until then.
Re: (Score:2)
go watch the famous youtube video 'dont talk to cops'. you need to learn a few things.
That video is about talking to the police if you are a suspect in a crime. It is not about talking to the police if you are a witness.
Re: (Score:2)
if the cops came to my door and asked if I've seen a guy around the neighborhood with such-and-such description, I'm pretty sure I'd give them a prompt and truthful answer.
Because you think that's the morally appropriate choice? Or for some other reason(s)?
Re:Extract your cranium from your anus, buddy. (Score:4, Insightful)
'broadcasting' in the tech sense, yes, but NOT in the usual PUBLIC SENSE. convenient that you leave that part out.
[... other stuff...]
Broadcasting can't be said to be being done in any one particular sense. It's broadcasting, PERIOD. Your cellphone, when operating in normal, customary mode, (not off, or in airplane mode, etc.,) is sending out a radio signal identifying itself to cell towers; without cellphones doing this, the cellular telephone system wouldn't work.
While I won't bother getting in the middle of the rest of the dispute, you're making a technical argument about a legal, non-technical distinction. I can see how you'd make that mistake, because the context also makes some technical claims. But let's be clear: in legal terms, "broadcast" (sending data over radio waves) is not the same as "broadcast" (making content available to an audience). Writing an email on the bus doesn't give the riders permission to read its contents, just as downloading a song does not constitute a public performance.
This is an important distinction.
Re:This seems batshit crazy. (Score:4, Informative)
Would the government need a warrant to compel your mother to turn over all the letters she's sent to you over the years, so they can retro-actively track your location in an attempt to link you to crimes?
I worked for a telco (still do, but outside the US now), and the official policy was to comply, without question, to all court orders (warrants being a subset of court orders). Without a court order, we would be breaking the law (both state and federal) to even confirm Bob Smith was a customer, whether it's the local police, sherrif, state cops, or US President asking. But a court order to turn over records (if any), releases us from from any and all legal liability. It might not be able to stand up in court, but that's not our problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Would the government need a warrant to compel your mother to turn over all the letters she's sent to you over the years, so they can retro-actively track your location in an attempt to link you to crimes?
Hell to the yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Would the government need a warrant to compel your mother to turn over all the letters she's sent to you over the years, so they can retro-actively track your location in an attempt to link you to crimes?
Not sure the analogy is good as the content, yes obviously. If you're a fugitive from the law but they suspect your mom is secretly sending you letters do they need a warrant to read the mailing address? Probably not, a court order will probably do since it's information that the post office obviously must have in order to deliver it, just like the number you dialed.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, you'd be (in a similar sense) "broadcasting" your location when using your home landline too (i.e., the fact that you're at home). But they still need a fucking warrant for that!
Re: (Score:3)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is. Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
By that same screwed up logic, you have no expectation of privacy when talking on the phone because you are transmitting your voice to a third party
to relay it to it's final destination. Yes, my cell phone carrier has to know where I am to route my calls but that doesn't mean that they are free to put
a map on their website showing my exact location at all times to anyone who wants it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding--and I may be wrong here--but my phone is not broadcasting where it is. It is communicating with various cell towers. The company that owns those towers is using various techniques to figure out where I am.
Re: (Score:3)
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is.
This is really a political issue not a technological one. Just because something is possible does not mean doing it is permissible.
To put it another way just because the walls of your house are probably not thick enough to attenuate high energy x-ray backscatter or a laser based listening devices does not mean LEAs get to drive around and do whatever the fuck they want without first having to make a legal showing.
While I tend to favor technological solutions which deny capability sometimes it is better for
Re: (Score:2)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is. Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
There is privacy, and then there is confidentiality.
No, there is no privacy. But there is a certain expectation that the various parties involved will keep information to themselves and not pass it back and forth freely when it is not necessary to do so.
Stop laughing!
Re: (Score:3)
That said, he was an idiot for bringing it to the bank he was casing. Which also makes my point... It is more of an invasion for the law abiding then for the law breakers.
Re: (Score:3)
You have an expectation of privacy
That's precisely the problem.
The Public EXPECTS Privacy -- while the Government does not recognize any such thing and seeks to remove any and all privacy.
My government believes in privacy, at that they're the most private secretive government we've ever had and I'm sure they expect to spy on citizens in private.
Re: (Score:2)
No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?
This worries me. How long before no expectation of privacy when using the internet?
When using a car? (GPS in modern cars)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
Expectation.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible. One day, I doubt that the word "private" will mean anything.
The question is, will we adapt and how will we adapt?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible. One day, I doubt that the word "private" will mean anything.
So we're going to get rid of the military too?
Re: (Score:2)
if there is no privacy, in the future, all the privates wil get to SEE our privates!
eww. gross. I don't want to be part of that future.
OT joke: its been said of C++ that the concept of 'friends' is: friends can see each others' private parts. lol
anyway, privacy is CORE to the human race. it will never go out of style. its only the spooks and bad guys (ceos, etc) who try to connvince you (no, not a spelling error) that privacy is dead. of course, they all say that from their fenced in estates, with do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible.
Privacy will always be possible. The question is whether we will permit that possibility to be taken from us. Just because large organizations like the government and megacorps can spy on us does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Any group that large will also be vulnerable to social pressure including, but not limited to, laws.
> The question is, will we adapt and how will we adapt?
Privacy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?
It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location. They can't make the phone call work without knowing your locatio
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.
Same difference. I expect that my location is kept private too.
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
Difference being that I am not friends with my telco. I can choose one from two or forego a modern convenience. The latter is an option, but runs against the freedom to pursue happiness. I want to be able to choose simple modern luxuries and conveniences without agreeing the government gets to know every where I go.
The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location.
Yes. They have the necessity to know it to fullfill the service.
but I expect they have the right to give it to the police.
Bingo. They should't. Just as I have attorney/client priviledge and
Re: (Score:2)
Same difference. I expect that my location is kept private too.
Your expectations may be off, then.
For example, if I call you, the police can find out that I spoke with you by checking my or your telephone records. While they cannot determine what was said, they can know that I called you at a particular time.
Where you are is somewhat the same thing and is probably protected in the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
This means the Sting ray should still illegal.
But I am majorly disappointed in the wording of the ruling. Knowledge of technology should have NO bearing on expectation of privacy. My knowledge of what people can do does not make it legal for them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
And you wonder why I never call anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Distinction without a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It is still a BS ruling. If I am in my own home making a phone call (I don't have a land line) I definitely have an expectation of privacy; location, content, and otherwise. Existing law already says that.
The "privacy of your own home" only extends as far as you keep your actions private, if you post home videos on YouTube they don't get the same protection as you have against the police planting a spy camera in your house. When you make a call, you're volunteering information to the phone company about where you are and who you'd like to call, you don't get any extra expectation of privacy from doing it from your own home.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the police force-grabbing all surveillance recordings that happen to have a public space visible? This is no different than the police demanding location information from the phone companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Privacy, what about accuracy. My cell phone location data had me travelling to locations, I had never been, even overseas. Live in Adelaide, never left Adelaide since having the phone, but location data showing me travelling to Singapore.
So moron courts, how about placing some real legal risks on those providing that data, to ensure accuracy. So what is the penalty for the company providing inaccurate data, how many millions of dollars in penalties would they pay for providing inaccurate data, that threa
Re: (Score:2)
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When enough people stand up and demand it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're one step away from "you have no expectation of privacy when masturbating in the shower."
Re: (Score:2)
If you're employed as a highwayman (Score:4, Funny)
shit, you need to investigate another line of work.
Attention to detail is not your strong suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the fact that some thieves have been caught after they used a stolen phone to post geolocated selfies to the victims' Instagram or Facebook account, I think that for the most part, low-brow thieves are by definition some kind of stupid.
If you have attention to detail, patience and intelligence, you realize that there are easier ways to make money than petty theft.
How true. My cop friends tell me they only catch the stupid ones, like those who get stopped in a traffic stop, turn over their license and then run away when the cop sees drugs in the car, or call 911 to report a crime a mile away from the pay phone they use to call in the information. In the latter, they sent a cruiser to the pay phone location and caught the guy in the act of crime. His comment? How did you know to come here? In the former, he let the guy run and simply drove to his address to bust him.
Every cell phone is a lo-jack... (Score:2)
This should be blatantly obvious to anybody that knows anything about wireless tech.. Your phone carrier MUST know which cell tower you're near, simply because it's required to have your phone work at all.. And it's trivial to keep a log of such connections; some carriers keep it for 30 days, some for 6 months.
My guess is that they're counting on the ignorance of the average criminal to NOT know that fact, which makes the job for the police much easier...
Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Your phone carrier MUST know"
Yes, but that's not the same as saying the _police_ should know.
Re: (Score:2)
I would still like to see warrants prove necessary for the police to collect information on people from parties that those people have business arrangements with. Consider it a means to ensure that they prioritize using what resources they have for what's truly important.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't agree with the judgment, I understand where they're coming from. This goes back years to hidden compartments. If somebody builds something for you, and you use it in a crime, the court can order them to disclose what they know. Cellphones kind of fall into the same category.
Was the cellphone actually used in the crime, or was it just in his pocket at the time.
Sounds like the police are just using the location records to establish the suspect being at the location of the robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be used in a crime. All cell phone switch cell towers while you travel... your cell provider it keeps a timestamp log of this switching whether you use your phone or not. If you are suspected of a crime, all they need to do is guess your (plausible) location and see if your phone agrees. If you have an accomplice with a cell phone, he will mirror/intersect the same locations as you... and finding plausible accomplices would be as easy as going through your phone's call/SMS communic
Re: (Score:2)
No, what this article talks about is the police unilaterally collecting information without any court oversight.
No, the article talks about the ruling saying the police need a court order rather than a warrant, but they still need a court order, which means an active prosecution must be in progress and a judge has to sign off on the request. That sound to me like court oversight. The problem here is the police have a lower threshold to meet to get a court order than they do to get a warrant.
Never mind the rather shocking implications with respect to personal freedoms when the government is given carte blanc(sic) to track everyone at all times.
That is the crux of the case, namely the government isn't tracking everyone all the time, the cell phone companies are, or at
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the data Google must have about you in order to provide the free service you receive from them - you emails, your photos, your location, you ED searches, etc., etc.
Well, because you have shared that with Google, you have no expectation of privacy, so the government can take it whenever they want.
No lack of knowledge? (Score:3)
One of the judges wrote: "We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage."
Seriously? We still have problems with heroin junkies not knowing the risks of sharing needles and teens not knowing about the spread of HIV. I'm not justifying ignorance but our society needs to recognize that inequalities in our educational system have resulted in some dull tools in the shed with more rusting everyday. The mantra that "Ignorance is not an excuse" is not accepted by a large percentage of Americans. Disagree? Keep watching our cities burn.
your cellphone is a radio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
case closed... next! (Score:2, Interesting)
The justices ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for your location when you're using a cell phone. One of the judges wrote: We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage.
A right and well justified decision, since it's not about the privacy of the communication but about the location records, in the same way a witness can testify that a suspect was in some location - and no warrant is needed because a court can order a witness to testify.
Re: (Score:2)
According to that logic then all of your web browsing is open to police capture without a warrant. Everything you download is captured in logs on a web server somewhere so you are saying it's fine for the police to look at them, no warrant required?
Expectation of privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I'm going up against many years of case law here, but... the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about privacy. It says no searches and seizures without a warrant.
So the question is: Is it legal for MetroPCS to hand over the data, presumably in violation of their privacy policy and CPNI laws? Or did they do it because they were threatened and intimidated?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it legal for MetroPCS to hand over the data, presumably in violation of their privacy policy and CPNI laws?
Most policies have a convenient *out* in that they allow themselves to give out this data so that they can stay on the good side of the government. CPNI deals with sharing data with other private parties, not government.
FWIW, Here's what a MetroPCS's subscriber agrees to let the company do with private information when signing up for their service (basically anytime anywhere they feel it's worth it for them)...
We may disclose Personal Information, and other information about you, or your communications, where we have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary:
* to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request;
* to enforce or apply agreements, or initiate, render, bill, and collect for services and products (including to collection agencies in order to obtain payment for our products and services);
* to protect our rights or interests, or property or safety or that of others;
* in connection with claims, disputes, or litigation – in court or elsewhere;
* to protect users of our services and other carriers or providers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;
* to facilitate or verify the appropriate calculation of taxes, fees, or other obligations due to a local, state, or federal government; or
* in an emergency situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm going up against many years of case law here, but... the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about privacy. It says no searches and seizures without a warrant.
So the question is: Is it legal for MetroPCS to hand over the data, presumably in violation of their privacy policy and CPNI laws? Or did they do it because they were threatened and intimidated?
That is a good question. I'm guessing their privacy policy has enough outs to let them do this. as for the CPNI law it has an exception for laws requiring turnover of data. If a court ordered the turn over it could fall within that exception. Just as TFA stated that old decisions prior to technological advances are not relevant to today's technological capabilities with respect to the availability of information one could argue that technological advances have changed expectations of privacy. To use a car a
Ninth Amendment (Score:2)
Robber ... (Score:2)
No expectation of Privacy say what? (Score:2)
http://wiki.radioreference.com... [radioreference.com]
I very well do have a legal expectation of privacy. cell blocked (or cellular blocked) is a phrase applied to scanners and wideband receivers manufactured for sale in the US which denotes that they comply with the provisions of PL 102-556, which amended Section 302 of the Communications Act (47USC302) to prohibit manufacture, importation, or certification of scanners which could receive the frequency band allocated for analog AMPS cellular telephony, "the frequencies allocat
Re: (Score:2)
This is the use of the logs held by the phone company which show what cell tower your phone connected to and when. It can locate you to within a specific area during a period of time (or at least your SIM).
Re: (Score:2)
you are reinforcing my point. this is not 'broadcasting' since its priv'd info and radio bands have been blocked for about 20 years or so, now.
I remember buying a radio shack scanner that could do the 'diode trick' and you could easily unblock the analog phone bands. I never did that, I just read about it. yeah, read about it.
but now, even when the analog bands are no longer used for phones, the freq's are still on the block list, afaik.
and gear to decrypt digital phone rf data is NOT legal for regular p
Still needs a court order (Score:2)
Australian Data Retention laws (Score:2)
Under the recently passed data retention laws passed in Australia, law enforcement only needs to ask your carrier for the data and they are obliged to provide it.
SCOTUS ruling? (Score:2)
Didn't SCOTUS recently rule that a warrant was required to obtain cellphone metadata? If so, wouldn't that be relevant to this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's completely in accordance with Smith v. Maryland, which is the controlling law. Smith v. Maryland involved one tap on one person's phone; it's been used to cover the NSA bulk metadata collection program, thus proving the slippery slope is not a fallacy.
It'll take the robed 9 to overturn it, but they likely won't.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone calls you, they will have to check all the cell towers (in a short amount of time) to figure out which tower is closest to you. And that's expensive and wasteful for millions of calls that happen every day.