While the Lenihan order and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.

The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.

We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights, to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!) - it just doesn't fit any more.

We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!

Well, to be clear, triangulation is easy if you are the cell company or software running on the device. Google maps has (and still does) used triangulation to get pretty accurate location for years - before GPS was as common or when GPS signals are unavaliable. That still requires hacking either sprint's network or the device itself, but it's just good to be clear that not having GPS on a device doesn't save us much.
-Taylor

So you are telling us that you felt qualified to give IT advice to a PhD student, yet fail to understand basic design principles as "no single points of failure" ?

I believe you only need 2 towers for triangulation (you are the 3rd point in the triangle). And even with 1 tower, they still know your approximate location (i.e. they know you are close enough to that tower to get reception, and not close enough to any other tower to register). They might even be able to tell distance from the tower by signal strength or delay. Enough to support or destroy an alibi.

While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others.

All rights require something from others. The question is whether that something is negative (my right to freedom of expression requires you not to silence me) or positive (my right to equal treatment under the law requires you, as a restaurant owner, to serve me in the same manner that you serve other customers).

It's harder to state where rights end. My right to life requires that you do not shoot me. Does it require you to offer me basic first aid if someone else shoots me? Does it require you to allow me onto your property to escape someone trying to shoot me? Does it require you to sell me services that will save my life? Can you charge whatever you like, or does the cost have to be "reasonable"?

"For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."

Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.

And what happens when you have absolutely no way of knowing your ISP's policies in terms of releasing information, or whether it complies with those policies that you do know? You have absolutely no bargaining leverage at all as an individual, and "go without" isn't much of an alternative.

Wouldn't it be better for government to step in and provide people with the tools they need to actually take care of themselves? I agree that there's no need to make the transfer of personal information illegal per se - but what about requiring that ISPs allow customers to observe, or even determine, the parties to whom their information is transferred?

If, as you say, "Laws are only there to secure the rights and Liberties of men," then doesn't a law that prevents a gross imbalance of information about personal data sharing achieve exactly this end? Is there any party other than government that is adequately positioned to even out the balance of power between an ISP and an end user?