HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
So there you have it - authorities do not need to get a search warrant to obtain cellphone tower location records in criminal prosecutions.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Court: Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Not Illegal Search
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
So what these Judges basically came up with is that a user has no expectation to privacy in regards to his location tracking data because users are commonly aware that their phone is a radio broadcasting a signal that in turn links and communicates with the cell towers.
In other words, you know you are walking around broadcasting your location so why should you expect that no one should be able to figure out where you are. It's like saying that no one should be able to figure out you were walking down main Street even though you did nothing to disguise who you're identity.
Maybe. But there is still a difference in what the new tech allows. I think this one does need to go to the higher courts to get settled properly.
In other words, you know you are walking around broadcasting your location so why should you expect that no one should be able to figure out where you are. It's like saying that no one should be able to figure out you were walking down main Street even though you did nothing to disguise who you're identity.
Maybe. But there is still a difference in what the new tech allows. I think this one does need to go to the higher courts to get settled properly.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Sounds like a fair assessment, how dare the company that I am broadcasting all my information to give that information out to authorities, I mean ok sell that information to third parties sure but the police? That's where I draw the line. If you're going to commit armed robbery, maybe turn off your cell phone, or remove the battery.
Again, it's a matter of that third part and whether or not they want to fight that in court or just roll over and die.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
The law they used seems fairly narrow in scope:
They didn't get the content of any of his calls, nor did they get GPS information ... all they got was the time and approximate location (based on the cell tower used) ... if they hadn't had other information (they had witnesses to the crimes and other members of the gang testifying) then it is unlikely that this information alone would have been sufficient to convict ... also, the judges are right in one respect, if people don't like the results of this law then they should make Congress change it (the judges basically chose to rule that the law was followed adequately and it isn't their role to overturn it, which is correct)
quote is from the court documents
They didn't get the content of any of his calls, nor did they get GPS information ... all they got was the time and approximate location (based on the cell tower used) ... if they hadn't had other information (they had witnesses to the crimes and other members of the gang testifying) then it is unlikely that this information alone would have been sufficient to convict ... also, the judges are right in one respect, if people don't like the results of this law then they should make Congress change it (the judges basically chose to rule that the law was followed adequately and it isn't their role to overturn it, which is correct)
Pretty much this. If the law is followed as written, it's not the appeals courts job to determine Constitutionality. Of course, that also means its unlikely the Supreme Court will ever review.
Judges are ALWAYS biased in favor of the govt and law enforcement, who knows what kind of bias and pressure is applied to them. On top that they have zero qualifications to understand these technical issues, and should have no authority on these matters.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
If SCOTUS refuses to review a case they are by default accepting its constitutionality ... They generally only review cases if they feel its interpretation or constitutionality is in question
Do you have a diminished expectation of privacy? Yes. However, there is still some level of expectation of privacy. You expect yourself to know. You expect your carrier to be able to figure it out and have the data, but you don't really expect random third parties to be able to come in and have access to the data.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
That's kind of their job in these cases
, and the Constitution actually gives them the authority on stuff like that regardless of what you might think of their knowledge of the subject
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
So what body should review these technical questions? Also, this is more a matter of law than just a technical question. The police used the Stored Communications Act to get his relevant information ... That act limits the info they can get but makes the request easier ... The judges simply ruled that they operated within the boundaries of that law ... This law has been on the books since 1986 and has not faced any questions of its overall constitutionality ... This law was passed by Congress
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
I don't agree with the free sharing of the information from the provider to any law enforcement agency that asks. That part needs changed. If I were running a business, any and all customer information is private and not shared with anyone without written court authorization. I treat customer data as confidential. Sadly, some places just share it all willy nilly. It's legal, of course. Just shouldn't be. Not a lot of info was given (tower, phone line), but none should be given without a warrant. Just my opinion. I just hold a higher standard to consumer data than some others. I have no problem giving it away if it's needed in a legal manner, just make sure there is a legal reason and it has the backing of the court. If you need faster warrants for the information, work on it.
And, if Warrant delivers the warrant, then it warrants an applause.
And, if Warrant delivers the warrant, then it warrants an applause.
Because I expect average people to just happen to have the gear necessary to make use of that signal.
If I read private material in public because someone might just happen to have a high resolution high speed camera focused on my documents from 20 stories up and be able to read them, I have no expectation of privacy for documents in my possession?
Just because there's a wackadoodle scenario where someone might be able to discern my private material, that shouldn't be the bar.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I don't agree with the free sharing of the information from the provider to any law enforcement agency that asks. That part needs changed. If I were running a business, any and all customer information is private and not shared with anyone without written court authorization. I treat customer data as confidential. Sadly, some places just share it all willy nilly. It's legal, of course. Just shouldn't be. Not a lot of info was given (tower, phone line), but none should be given without a warrant. Just my opinion. I just hold a higher standard to consumer data than some others. I have no problem giving it away if it's needed in a legal manner, just make sure there is a legal reason and it has the backing of the court. If you need faster warrants for the information, work on it.
And, if Warrant delivers the warrant, then it warrants an applause.
They have to do more than just ask according to the law in question:
if a court of competent jurisdiction finds specific and
articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
records sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
They still have to go to court to get permission and it is only where there is an ongoing criminal investigation ... it is just the bar is reasonable grounds rather than probable cause
Right, cause people who are appointed to a position that is good for life are so easy to threaten ... with .........
What was it we were going to threaten them with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Don't you stop thinking MrCrispy, live is more exciting when you live it on the edge
MrCrispy, I would like to apologize for my last comment in the post above. It wasn't necessary for me to express myself that way and you didn't deserve it. I am sorry Sir.
I catch a lot of crap on this forum, it's my fault I get wet, if I didn't want to risk getting wet I should stay out of the damn pool right. Still, sometimes I catch myself being more critical then I should.
I catch a lot of crap on this forum, it's my fault I get wet, if I didn't want to risk getting wet I should stay out of the damn pool right. Still, sometimes I catch myself being more critical then I should.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
And if you RTFA, you'd see
So they did have written court authorization.
Now the big argument is that courts who rubber stamp anything that police give them, but as it stands, the law is IMO, fine since you do not own the data that says you used cell tower XYZ. What's actually on YOUR phone should require a search warrant to access (but that's another topic).
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
This ruling was not far reaching either ... it strictly left the law as written intact ... in this particular case they had a man in custody who was accused of a string of robberies ... they had members of his gang testifying against him ... they didn't have a direct eye witness (since they wore masks) but they did have eye witnesses testifying that his build, size, and voice matched ... based on the other evidence they went to a judge and asked that the phone provider give his call logs (time and date) and the tower connection for the periods where robberies occurred (they had a representative of the company explain to the jury how cell tower radius and coverage worked) ... they then used this data (which placed him in the vicinity of the robberies), in combination with the other testimony, as part of the trial proceedings ... this data may have played a part in his conviction but it was hardly the only data used against him
The law in question would not have allowed the use of GPS data or actual call content ... if they had wanted or needed that then they would have needed to pursue a search warrant or other legal mechanism
The law in question would not have allowed the use of GPS data or actual call content ... if they had wanted or needed that then they would have needed to pursue a search warrant or other legal mechanism
Old term, Bean Counters, newer term, Metrics, it's got to be measurable. How else can you show improvement if you don't have measurable statistics to go by.
I know, you're wondering where I am going with this, how is this pertinent to the discussion?
Cops live in the same world and they have to have metrics too, arrests, arrests that lead to convictions, number of cases thrown out for insufficient evidence, and to get right on target, how often your requests for Court Orders/Warrants are refused/approved. Yes, if your stuff keeps getting turned down then you aren't writing them up well so you are less effective then your buddy, He get's the promotion before you.
This plays right into the "rubber stamp" comment. See, the only way you can say a court or judge is rubber stamping warrants is if there is a low failure rate, but the cops are careful about how they write and word their requests for a warrant cause they have learned what flies and what doesn't, therefor the system has evolved to produce a high success rate because the pressure we place on Police Officers to be efficient, the metrics, their success in their careers all combine to produce this effect. What some see as evidence of rubber stamping.
I know, you're wondering where I am going with this, how is this pertinent to the discussion?
Cops live in the same world and they have to have metrics too, arrests, arrests that lead to convictions, number of cases thrown out for insufficient evidence, and to get right on target, how often your requests for Court Orders/Warrants are refused/approved. Yes, if your stuff keeps getting turned down then you aren't writing them up well so you are less effective then your buddy, He get's the promotion before you.
This plays right into the "rubber stamp" comment. See, the only way you can say a court or judge is rubber stamping warrants is if there is a low failure rate, but the cops are careful about how they write and word their requests for a warrant cause they have learned what flies and what doesn't, therefor the system has evolved to produce a high success rate because the pressure we place on Police Officers to be efficient, the metrics, their success in their careers all combine to produce this effect. What some see as evidence of rubber stamping.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
They ask, they get. There is just reasonable suspicion. That could be anything from "he looks suspicious" to "he owns a cell phone" these days. That's what I'm saying needs fixed. They need a warrant or something substantial. Not just a "oh, yea - here you go. Here's your memo. Have fun!".
It's disturbing because it's yet another erosion of 4th amendment protections, at least if it were to apply to a larger area. It's scary because many laws for records are outdated, especially now that stored metadata goes far beyond the limited scope of what made certain records requests non-invasive in the past. It's the type of test case that could be heard by the SCOTUS, but the conservative majority will likely side with law enforcement as they usually do.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am still not clear what you dislike about the law (that has been in effect since 1986) ... it requires specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. ... certainly there might be judges that just roll over for any request and if so then the cases should be reviewed ... however, I don't think this case set any unusual precedents:
- they had people testifying that this person committed a crime (specific and articulable fact)
- they requested a list of his calls and the approximate location he was at when he made them shortly after the crimes had occurred to place him near the scene of the crimes (relevant and material information)
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
It is possible that they may have pursued this data for a different metric reason ... it is clear that given the other evidence they could have obtained GPS data with a search warrant (if his phone had GPS) ... however, that data is very precise and if it didn't tell them exactly what they needed it could hurt their case
Cell Tower data is much less precise but it was sufficient to put the defendant in the general area where they could then use their other evidence and testimony to put him the rest of the way into the crimes ... in this particular case the less precise data may have had its own advantages
Unfortunate that you and others like to use the terms conservative and liberal, they just screw things up. It's a way of hanging a label on something so that you can in turn draw on other "accepted proof" related to the label in order to provide a foundation for a claim.
Unfortunate, unnecessary, ineffective. For instance, how do you support your claim of a conservative relationship to this topic when it's been a mostly liberal body of law makers in power for the last eight years? But it's conservatives that are fault.
How about we move past the primitive label hanging. It just get's in the way. The only part of this records request that has any bearing is the location data because that is what was requested, supplied, and contested in court. Now if the cops had a team of officers following him around those officers would likely have observed the defendant in the vicinity of all these crimes and been able to establish the same support for the argument that this guy was involved in these crimes. In the case of the phone records, they became evidence of the same thing exhumed from the past, pulled from what transpired and provided as evidence that placed the defendant in the vicinity of all these crimes. Would you believe the records before you would believe the cops testimony that they followed him around?
Anyway, the real discussion isn't that the cops were able to use these records, it's that they were able to obtain them with a Court Order which required a lower burden of proof then a Warrant would have.
Now here is the question, a women is raped and killed in a subway station and there are security cameras at the station. The cops have a suspect and want to confirm his presence in the area with the security tape. There is no material difference between the real case and my fictitious one.
Do the cops need a warrant for the security tapes or is a Court Order good enough?
If the cops can show cause for a records request for location data then I do not see it as an erosion of the 4th. Pulling data from your phone, content, etc, this is more invasive, this is more like a search and less like observable information showing or NOT showing a location relationship. Think it thru, had the location information showed the suspect in other parts of the city with no time/space relationship to the crimes, they would have cleared him and perhaps lessened a further inquiry and support for a warrant and a true search of his phone. Remember, if you make them get a warrant then they still might be able to, and that means a complete and thorough digging through your data.
Which is better, an easier check of location data further incriminating guilty suspects while clearing innocent ones, or forcing the issue to a full warrant which will expose all your secrets even if you are innocent, who knows what else they will find.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
But, they don't have enough for a warrant? I don't know law, and it sounds like you do, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. But, I would like to see an actual warrant rather than just an "Ok" from the court. If they have evidence that a crime was committed, then a warrant should be no problem. To me, it sounds like an easy way to exploit the system and work around getting a warrant and easily used for the wrong purposes. With the trust of law enforcement and government lately, I don't see why it's so far fetched that the law can help breed misuse.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
Better to have them checking the innocent. That could open a path for a lawsuit (for the police or the accuser). It would make the cops do more digging to make sure that they are confident in the suspect. Your example shows one thing where the law could be used to help people out. I'm getting old and cynical. I am looking at the downside and how it can be abused a lot more than I used to. Yes, it can do a lot of good. But, it has the potential to be used the wrong way as well. [there are tons of examples of each for a lot of these privacy laws].
Say whaaaaaaat? Granted Eric Holder and pals seem like they are anti-po'po' but that's just pure Jesse Jackson style political pandering. The Obama administration has shown they are just as war-mongering big brother surveillance oriented as any other, and remember the "conservative majority" (which isn't a majority), has a large component of Libertarians that like myself are very much against big brother policies and believe in an end to the war-on-drugs and lighter touch and demilitarization of the police. The only difference to political panderers like in the Obama administration, is that we don't pretend that criminals are victims, jump to conclusions before a trial, and say that some thug could have been our kid in order to race bait.
Rand Paul, an outspoken Libertarian, may even be the next Republican presidential candidate, and you know his stance on big brother, unlawful surveillance, and illegal search and seizure.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
As I noted, they may have gone this way not to avoid a warrant (which they likely had grounds for) but because this data would give them just enough information (but not so much that it hurt their case) ... if they had searched his phone (which would have needed a warrant) and it didn't give them what they needed, they would be forced to tell that to the jury ... this data was much less precise but sufficient to put the defendant close enough to the crimes that the other witness testimony would convict him
This law has been in effect since 1986 so if people think it needs to change to require probable cause instead of reasonable cause then they need to push Congress to change the law (which they judges noted in their summary) ... most good judges don't want to make new law (and these appear to be of that crowd) ... they said the law was followed (as written) and that the scope (cell phone tower data) fit in the parameters of the law
If we didn't have such a dysfunctional Congress, I would say that one solution is laws have to be renewed every 15-20 years (to prevent them from becoming outdated or insufficient to cover new and emerging technologies) ... however, since Congress has passed fewer laws successfully the last few years I would hate to put even more on their plate