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."
How is this "unprecedented" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It scares me that this is considered an "unprecedented" victory. This looks like a clear-cut example of what the 4th amendment is meant to do. If the government wants access to private data they must have a warrant. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's one of the cornerstones of justice.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
the DOJ? warrants? (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't stop them (Score:2, Insightful)
sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is a dark, dark hour in US history when a court upholds the Constitution and the words "unprecedented victory" are used in the coverage of the event.
Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the data is mine, it's completely about me so it is mine. It cannot be considered directory information or public records.
Let's see if we fight the same fight for GPS data from our cars or our running shoes.
In a similar way, my medical & health information is also mine, since it is about me, independant of how that information was created, observed, or gathered. Yes, I understand there are special protections in place specifically for medical information - I really intend to address how I feel about it, not the legal perception.
Re:clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if it's the company, the could still voluntarily give up the info without the need for a warrant.
AND apply for "retroactive immunity" - don't forget THAT part.
Thanks, EFF (Score:2, Insightful)
... in Western Pennsylvania (Score:3, Insightful)
[insert "Old people in Pittsburgh [wikipedia.org]" meme...]
It's only a Federal district court [wikipedia.org] so far, so the Feds can still appeal it if they want. But it's an excellent start.
Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.
You are assuming a 'vast conspiracy' problem. Before that stage comes the one of a bunch of little conspiracies. Like individuals in positions of authority abusing that authority for personal reasons - like harassing ex-girlfriends and their new boyfriends, or individual police officers abusing the system to manipulate courts to convict people they 'just know' are guilty, or incumbent politicians using surveillance information to gain an unfair advantage over political challengers (sort of like the way Hoover used the FBI).
Right now, those are the kinds of privacy problems we have to contend with. If we allow them to go unchecked eventually we will end up in the situation of 'vast conspiracy' where these abuses are no longer the exception, they are the rule.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government is going to frame you... why go through the hastle of actually using real footage.
Because they don't know if they want to frame you yet. We're all anonymous and faceless.. until some tracking trend decides that we'd be a nice scapegoat. You have to show up on somebody's radar for that to happen. Your unusual, slashdot-reading, open-source programming, bookstore-visiting habits might be enough. Don't give them any hooks to go after you. If they can't track it, they won't be interested what it says about you--or what they can make it appear to say about you.
Re:How is this "unprecedented" ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, even when it is specially protected by The Constitution. That is backwards.
There. Fixed that for ya.
As to unprecedented, I think it means, "Unprecedented since 9/11, when we all decided that being terrified is a reasonable response to terrorism." Or, alternately, "Unprecedented since 9/11, when the executive realized that augmenting, or at least capitalizing upon, public terror would enable them to get the law enforcement tools they believe are important, even at the expense of our national principles."
Re:Well, not really (Score:5, Insightful)
-5 overrated for you. The police don't need a warrant to ask for anything. Consent is always sufficient, no warrant required. A warrant is only required to compel disclosure.
Re:They keep records?!?!?!! (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the article, they keep records of the cell phone towers used to interact with your phone. I know the summary says GPS, but that's not what the EFF attorney said in the article.
There are any number of perfectly good reasons for cell phone companies to track cell phone tower usage. That's their equipment. There are even reasons (e.g. potential billing disputes) why they might not want to anonymize that data.
Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws."
The point is to head things off with the privacy and other civil liberties laws long before it reaches the point of people disapearing into secret prisons, etc...
I think history shows us pretty clearly that tyranny is the natural end that governments evolve towards if they are not constantly kept in check by their citizens.
Then again.... our government already has it's secret prisons, doesn't it....
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is a dark, dark hour in US history when a court upholds the Constitution and the words "unprecedented victory" are used in the coverage of the event.
Well since this case had no legal precedent for the Judges to rely on, it stands to reason that the decision was unprecedented in the most literal sense of the word.
Lawyers use unprecedented as a technical term.
Get off your drama pony.
Re:Note to Self (Score:3, Insightful)
They would probably taser a bunch of five year-olds for not being cooperative. "I told them to get down, but all they would do is cry and say 'I want my mommy!' The book says we should taser non-cooperative suspects, so that's what we did." And then some scum-bag lawyer would argue that the police acted within their authority and that the law does not distinguish between a 200 lb drugged-up brute attacking a police officer and a five year-old crying for his mommy.
Re:Well, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My iphone 3g got stolen! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a question of being framed. It's a question of overzealous police and prosecutors deciding that you are guilty, then coming up with the evidence to prove it. This is a well known and common problem. It's just human nature. Police nearly always decide on who is guilty long before sufficient evidence of guilt is available. That's why our system protects suspects so greatly, because that's the only way to prevent them from being hanged by "good" people who believe that they are entirely in the right.