Gov. Can Now Track Your Phones Without Warrant
A new ruling says that--in most cases--government and law agencies don't need a search warrant to track cell phones.
Tuesday a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that--in most cases--the FBI and other police agencies do not need a search warrant in order to track the location of cell phones used by Americans.
The three-judge panel of the Third Circuit sided with the Obama Administration (pdf) in the belief that a signed search warrant--one based on a probable cause to suspect criminal activity--isn't necessary when obtaining logs from wireless carriers that depict the whereabouts of a cell phone.
However the panel also sided with civil-liberties groups and decided that, in some cases, investigators will still need to obtain a search warrant from the lower courts to avoid potentially unconstitutional seizures of location data. The court said that this option would be used "sparingly."
Currently there's still a debate on whether the Fourth Amendment applies to phone records. "This decision does not definitively answer the question of the Fourth Amendment status of cell phone [location records]," said Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kevin Bankston.
Controversy surrounding the original drug-related case sparked when U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan said that the Justice Department could not obtain stored location data without a search warrant, citing federal privacy laws. Lenihan demanded that the Justice Department show probable cause.
The Obama Administration retaliated, indicating that warrantless tracking was permissible because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their location--or at least in regards to cell phone use. The Administration said that it only needs a 2703(d) order to obtain the information--this requires law officials to show that the records are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
For the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy groups, the ruling is seen as a victory because some cases will still require a warrant. "Although the court did not definitively rule on the Fourth Amendment status of cell phone location information, it made clear that under some circumstances the privacy of such data could be constitutionally protected, and that judges have the discretion to require a warrant to avoid potentially unconstitutional seizures of location data," Bankston said.
- Pamela Anderson to Star in Movie with Nokia Fan
- Samsung Considering Android for New Google TVs
- NASA Launching Spacecraft Into the Sun
- Motorola Takes Another Swipe at Apple in New Ad
- VIDEO: Windows Phone 7 Ad Promises Revolution
- Batman: Arkham City is Looking Tastily Dark
- Self-Powered: Fuel Cell Can Use Body's Nutrients
- Platinum Nanoparticles Make Fuel Cells Better
- Relic Lead Designer Killed, Saving Pregnant Wife
- Hollywood Hiring Cyber Hitmen To Combat Piracy
- Apple Reveals Game Center Device Compatibility
- New Sony Website Jabs At Microsoft's Kinect
- Twitter Has Servers Dedicated to Justin Bieber
- Samsung: We'll Ship 10,000,000 Galaxy Tabs
- Xbox Live Gamer Banned For Living in Fort Gay
- John Romero Working With Facebook Game Maker
- Microsoft Announces New Xbox 360 Kinect Bundle
- Windows Phone 7 Coming October 11?
- Nintendo Nukes Homebrew, Piracy on DSi, Wii
Um... I bet some didn't have a warrant before this law.
Conspiracy theorist outrage in 3... 2... 1...
It's surprising what Obama will do and that we accept it just because he's Obama.
This rates right there with your IP addy and traffic cams. I believe that none of those, including cell phone, can be used against you for any reason as there is no clear way to prove that you were present with the phone. It is all circumstantial evidence and if I were a judge I would throw it out do to the fact that nothing proves YOU were there. It's pretty easy to sneak into someones house steal there car keys and then perform some crime then drop the car back off without you ever knowing it. Can you be held liable? yes, why? it's your vehicle that was seen so therefor you must have done the crime. Is it your cellphone? yes. was it at the scene of the crime? yes. then you must be guilty. WRONG!!!! it's to easy to frame someone on that premise alone, and therefor should not be submittable in court.
Fascism .........
But then, can't say they never did this before, maybe this time they just tell us they do
Big brother is here.. Well, he's been here but now they are making it all legal.
Obama is selling out the American people like every other president in the last 30-40 years.
They should just change "president" to super-ceo
It's surprising what Obama will do and that we accept it just because he's Obama.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. When President Bush signed intrusive legislation into laws, or issued executive orders which undermined privacy and freedoms, most people pitched a major fit... and rightfully so. Now that Obama is in power, you would think the first thing he would do is repeal or reverse some of that... nope! In fact, he's keeping those laws/orders in place and adding many of his own. At least with Bush, the intent of the laws was to gain intelligence on suspected terrorists (even though that could be easily abused). With Obama, it seems any and all Americans are fair game.
It's surprising what Obama will do and that we accept it just because he's Obama.
Bush pulled the exact same crap with his warrantless wiretaps. Both parties suck and it angers me greatly that the only 'major' parties outside of those two are either ridiculously right wing bible-bangers who want to use gov't to enforce their flavor of morality or stoned out treehuggin hippies who don't want anyone to make a buck (and my poor libertarian party isn't even on the radar).
Land of the free? Really? First the Patriot Act, now this, how about we just call it what it is and burn the Constitution, at least that way people know the true nature of the Leviathan governing them.
I'm pretty sure this was going on for a long time.
Cue right wing nutjob conspiracy theory.....now.
Grab your guns, they don't have any tracking device embedded.
You'd have thought, that as tired of George W. Bush most Americans had gotten by the end of his term, that any other president would have been different. Obama talked all about change. Unfortunately, he's followed in Bush's footsteps when it comes to social protection. We've seen more and more destruction of privacy rights.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and in fact used to be in law enforcement myself. So I can see how this ruling can serve local law enforcement.
However, let's think about this. A judge is no longer required to test why law enforcement wants your phone location data (and to ensure they have proper probably cause to obtain it). All new cell phones are now required to have e911 GPS capability (presumably so 911 operators can locate you if you are unable to verbally give your location). So in some sense, if you own a cell phone you could be tracked at all times.
Now, I'm not going to say we're all being tracked constantly. I honestly don't think the government really gives a crap at this point. However, your phone can be tracked. Look at all the add-on cell phone services that allow you to monitor your kids based on their cell phone location.
The Patriot Act started it all from a legal perspective.
Cue right wing nutjob conspiracy theory.....now.
This has nothing to do with right vs left! Every administration is as bad as the last when spying on our ass is concerned. Bush was just as bad. You want CCTV cams everywhere? Thats not a far fetched conspiracy, its happening in the UK right now.
Wait I thought it was big bad Bush and all the republicans who stole our privacy? No wait, liberals are just naive morons.
huh? sucks being in America right now ....
Tracking =\= listening. The logic is sound. If it's not illegal for a cop to follow you around in public, it shouldn't be illegal for them to follow your phone signal.
This isn't wire tapping, no personal info is being exposed. It's the same as having security cameras.
This is why I don't own one and that I am cheap. I hate the damn things any way and people that are on them all day annoy me. Mind you this is coming from a 20 year old gamer and not from someone who is much older. I hate how people drive while 'texting" they are worse than drunkers.
This is why I don't own a cell phone!
We're actually (glad to be) leaving the country soon. It's just getting ridiculous around here with corruption and politics and media that just never seems to go away. Obama is a chump.
Do they mean the GPS feature of location for cell phones or, where the phone address is listed to owner ?? If they have a phone number they can just look that up in the directory, for address anyways, if they are talking about taking and or listening to phone conversations, that would deffinately be a breach of the 4th amend privacy rules, without probable cause.
Some phones dont have gps but they can be tracked via the carriers to which towers are sending receiving calls in a given area for that phone.
What do cell phones have to do with drug trafficking any ways ?? Anyone doing illegal things and stupid enough to use their own phone for it deserves to be caught anyways. ( Like saying lets do a bank heist and well use are own personal vehicle(s) as the getaway car - lol ).
I mean seriously every phone call is 2 telephone numbers transaction, and those numbers are "KNOWN" whom bought the service number and where its registered and installed to. Each call is timed land or cell as well so you get a bill for it, so every call is already traceable, and where its at.
For cell phones, using gps tower tracking what tower is closest to and sending that cell device a call, is pretty much all the info they can get, and or the GPS part of the phone, if the carrier has access to those phone functions to gps track it, new phones have it older models many dont.
As for listening to phone coversations is a whole different story, that would need to be addresses. As probable casue would be needed then for that privacy rights. If they can just listen to anyones phone calls whenever they want unrestricted, then phone calls also to be used agaist them in court for that with no probable cause, then phones cell or land line would be consider public item not, private, and usage would dramatically change.
More would opt for encrypted voip or other forms if they could tap into you phone call any time they please un warranted, and listen use any conversations against someone in court.
What happend to the definition of private enterprise? Since when does the government own the phone companies? This evidence won't be used to prove you were someplace, the authorities will use it to hunt you down in real time when they want you.
What really galls me is that the police are climing they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and that you can not use the very same phone they can track you with to record them in public.
Wanna bet they will never retrieve a stolen phone with this simple tracking setup? Why would they want to serve the public....
Seriously though, some phones are $500 - $1000... they can track it and get it back in a few mins, get er done!
...and another one bites the dust...
/civil liberties...
Grab your guns, they don't have any tracking device embedded.
BTW, there is a tracking device on your guns. Its called a registerd serial number, they can track where that gun belongs.
If there is a current criminal investigation going on I can understand that they would need to aquire this kind of information. But...
"Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their location--or at least in regards to cell phone use."
Who made themselves king and decided this? As many people that now use a cell phone this is country, the Gov. saying we can track a majority of you whenever/wherever we like!
I for one have a VERY REASONABLE! expectation of someone not being able to know my location or where I've been at a whim.
I don't care how angry you are, how much Fox news tells you it's the end of the world. This is not illegal in any way. It's the same thing as security cameras, same thing as a police stakeout, same exact thing.
Nowhere in the constitution is this prohibited. The only people who are complaining are the conspiracy theorists who think the government is out to get them.
It's not like warrants were hard to come by before hand. They hand them out all the time. All this does is speed up the process.
Just paranoia. I see nothing wrong with it. Calling it a slippery slope is just an excuse to complain about something before anything wrong happens.
Funniest thing about this is that a lot of the people bitching probably have their real life details all over facebook.
So what did anyone expect from the 3rd Circus Court
We're actually (glad to be) leaving the country soon. It's just getting ridiculous around here with corruption and politics and media that just never seems to go away. Obama is a chump.
Ever considered finland? high speed broadband is a human right there
I don't do anything wrong or go anywhere I'm ashamed of, so I don't have a problem with this.