DOJ Needs Warrant To Track Your Cell's GPS History 122
MacRonin recommends a press release over at the EFF on their recent court victory affirming that cell phone location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Here is the decision (PDF). "In an unprecedented victory for cell phone privacy, a federal court has affirmed that cell phone location information stored by a mobile phone provider is protected by the Fourth Amendment and that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before seizing such records. EFF has successfully argued before other courts that the government needs a warrant before it can track a cell phones location in real-time. However, this is the first known case where a court has found that the government must also obtain a warrant when obtaining stored records about a cell phones location from the mobile phone provider."
Re:Well, not really (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, not really (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if the warrant has to be to get the data from YOU or from the cell COMPANY? Did they specify who owns that info? Because if it's the company, the could still voluntarily give up the info without the need for a warrant.
The court said the police can't ask for the information without a warrant.
You're suggesting the phone company "could still voluntarily give up the info without the need for a warrant."
Those two statements are mutually incompatible.
If the police cannot ask without a warrant, how do you propose the phone company will voluntarily give up your location?
-1 Overrated for you.
Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, you are mistaken on this.
We went through this years ago with a device called a pen register. You clipped it onto the old analog phone lines, which used voltage changes driven by a spring loaded rotary dial to transmit phone numbers to mechanical switches. Because you disclosed the phone number to the carrier (obviously, you'd have to), it wasn't yours personally; it wasn't your papers, your effects and was not in your home. Therefore it didn't fall under the fourth amendment.
There's an important constitutional theory (decried by some conservatives) that says the Bill of Rights isn't just about what it says, that we have to reinterpret it as circumstances. Certain right fall into the so-called "penumbra" of the Bill; they aren't right in the shadow, but they're close to the edge. This view stems from the Ninth, which says we aren't allowed to treat the Bill of Rights as a bill -- an exhaustive list.
The problem with the penumbra is nobody can say where it stops.
That's where it's Congress's role to step in with laws that regulate the activity of the government near the penumbra. And they did. They created the "Pen Register Act" which says you need to meet the same standards as a search of somebody's home if you want to use a pen register.
Wherever this ruling found its justification, it was probably not in Constitutional law because that would overturn long established precedent. If that was so, I'd expect it to get overturned, unless we can get a SCOTUS ruling that overturns existing precedent in favor of limiting executive power in a way no prior court has done. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
If it gets its justification in statutory law, then it may or may not be overturned. For example, nobody uses a pen register any longer. If you want to use the Pen Register Act you've got to have some thing that is close enough in function to a pen register to fall under the law, which I don't think GPS records are. It might be justified under some other kind of law regulating the use of telecomm records.
The important take home lesson is: if you don't like this, don't count on the Constitution to protect you. It won't. Elect congress critters who see this your way.
Re:Note to Self (Score:3, Informative)
Thats perposterous. They wouldn't taser a five year old. However, at age six, apparently anything goes. [theregister.co.uk]