Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feds push for tracking cell phones without warrants.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
SharksBreath Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 04:41 PM
Original message
Feds push for tracking cell phones without warrants.
February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST
by Declan McCullagh

The Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

Hmm. Interesting. So what do they mean when they say.

No reasonable expectation of privacy'


What exactly is "Our right to privacy."


No reasonable expectation of privacy'
In the case that's before the Third Circuit on Friday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, said it needed historical (meaning stored, not future) phone location information because a set of suspects "use their wireless telephones to arrange meetings and transactions in furtherance of their drug trafficking activities."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan in Pennsylvania denied the Justice Department's attempt to obtain stored location data without a search warrant; prosecutors had invoked a different legal procedure. Lenihan's ruling, in effect, would require police to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause--a more privacy-protective standard.

You can read the entire article here.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BunkerHill24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not sure, but Duer had something about this being continuation
of *bush admin. and not something the Obama's doing. I'll have to look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'd like a constitutional amendment
guaranteeing our right to privacy.

But that's just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Michigan-Arizona Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No not just you, I'd like it to & many others would I hope n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiveMeFreedom Donating Member (445 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. fuck...
I just dropped my cell phone service because I can't pay them. Now I will have to wear a bull's eye cap, so they can spot me from outer space. :silly: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KILL THE WISE ONE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" anywhere anymore.
so I assume It is all fair game now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Landline locations, of course, were always known

What they are arguing is that historically the locations of all telephones were known.

The cell phone carriers, of course, have to know where the phones are (at least approximately). So, the question under Mapp v. Ohio is, since you know that at least one third party knows where your phone is, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. Hate to tell you this, but this is already happening
It has been going on for at least five years now. Private corporations have been tracking cell phones for "traffic control" purposes, first in big cities, then in smaller metro areas, now reaching out to the rural areas.

And of course since this is for "traffic control", the information is shared with police already.

Now then, initially you could avoid this by turning your cell phone off. But newer phones now have the capability to act as a tracking beacon, even while they are off. Your only option is to either not carry a phone or to take the battery out.

The sad thing about all of this is that we the people are paying for our own shackles. We buy cell phones and On Star, and those fine home security systems that have sensors inside the home, all the better to track what you do inside your own four walls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. Seems like one of the unabomber's assertions in his manifesto is right: the more technology develops
as a whole continually narrows our sphere of freedom.

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC