Federal Judge: Only Powered-Off Cell Phones Deserve Privacy Protections

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Don't want the government tracking you? Turn your phone off. Wait. What?

A federal magistrate judge in New York recently ruled that cell phone location data deserves no protection under the Fourth Amendment and that accordingly, the government can engage in real-time location surveillance without a search warrant. In an opinion straight from the Twilight Zone, magistrate judge Gary Brown ruled two weeks ago that “cell phone users who fail to turn off their cell phones do not exhibit an expectation of privacy.”
Click to expand...
 
Wonder how this judge will feel when his cell phone gets tracked to a local whore house, and posted on front page of local newspaper??? :rolleyes:
 
This is what happens when a giant, lumbering bureaucracy like the federal government tries to keep up with technology that is changing every day.
 
Well that's rich, especially when you consider that they have the ability to remotely turn a cell phone ON.

Criminals. The whole lot.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Wonder how this judge will feel when his cell phone gets tracked to a local whore house, and posted on front page of local newspaper??? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's actually not a bad idea. He essentially ruled that the data is fair game. I'd love to him call foul and then get shot down with a "well, turn your phone off - you have no expectation of privacy!".
 
They were going to do it anyways....At least this dick is up front about it.
 
Strange that the government never catches itself doing anything wrong......that microscope only points in one direction.
 
Let us all start tracking every government officials cell phones and see how long this rule stands. The guy just declared it legal so let us get to it.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Wonder how this judge will feel when his cell phone gets tracked to a local whore house, and posted on front page of local newspaper??? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Super-D said:
This is what happens when a giant, lumbering bureaucracy like the federal government tries to keep up with technology that is changing every day.
Click to expand...

From a legal and logical standpoint:

If your phone is constantly being a wifi spy/discoverer feeding geolocation data to Apple or Google...why should at least said location data have an expectation of privacy?

Outrage aside...the judge like it or not has a point.
 
The problem with justice and technology as I see it, is the men and women who are the to uphold the law are simply out of touch with technology, plain and simple. Even for most of us tech heads even the things coming in in 2013 are starting to get a ahead of us, and you expect these people to grasp the concept of Stuxnet, folding, 3D printing, torrenting, and eventually AI? What our government fails to understand on a consistent basis, that every piece of legislation and policy regarding technology is a 2 way street. If they think they're immune to the same type of scrutiny the American people when it comes to privacy, because they have the false sense of belief that government has a conscience; then mzs_biteme's point is spot on:

Unless that politician/judge plays ball with the people who are really in control, and wants to move their status position to move forward, they better figure out how to be a little more discreet with their kiddy porn.
 
Skripka said:
From a legal and logical standpoint:

If your phone is constantly being a wifi spy/discoverer feeding geolocation data to Apple or Google...why should at least said location data have an expectation of privacy?

Outrage aside...the judge like it or not has a point.
Click to expand...

While I agree that a connected device shouldn't be expected to be undetectable on a network, it doesn't mean that the government is free to take this information without a warrant.

Should take his smartphone and shove it up this judge's ass. We don't have to ask permission to do this, as it should be expected of all cell phone users.
 
-PK- said:
While I agree that a connected device shouldn't be expected to be undetectable on a network, it doesn't mean that the government is free to take this information without a warrant.

Should take his smartphone and shove it up this judge's ass. We don't have to ask permission to do this, as it should be expected of all cell phone users.
Click to expand...

Look if you (general you) as a user freely allow Google or Apple to come through your geolocation data, as virtually everyone with a smartphone does...without them even telling you they're doing it or what they're doing with it or when they're doing it or whom they're selling said data to for $$$$$....Why shouldn't the 50 be able to?* You as a user obviously give no shits at all about your privacy in this circumstance....up until the police are the ones looking at it, then it suddenly becomes a problem?

As much as everyone on [H] should hate to admit it...the judge has a point.

*Note: Devil's Advocate
 
damicatz said:
Well that's rich, especially when you consider that they have the ability to remotely turn a cell phone ON.
Click to expand...

You need to stop watching criminal dramas on prime time TV.

I suspect you will also be shocked to know that you can't, in fact, "enhance" an image to make it crystal clear from a blurry mess.

To spell it out explicitly, no, they can not remotely turn a cell phone on. Nobody can, it's impossible.
 
kllrnohj said:
You need to stop watching criminal dramas on prime time TV.

I suspect you will also be shocked to know that you can't, in fact, "enhance" an image to make it crystal clear from a blurry mess.

To spell it out explicitly, no, they can not remotely turn a cell phone on. Nobody can, it's impossible.
Click to expand...

And you can't remotely turn on a computer either :rolleyes::rolleyes:

There are a lot of things possible that you have no clue about, so you shouldn't comment on them because you believe it to be true.
 
Skripka said:
Look if you (general you) as a user freely allow Google or Apple to come through your geolocation data, as virtually everyone with a smartphone does...without them even telling you they're doing it or what they're doing with it or when they're doing it or whom they're selling said data to for $$$$$....Why shouldn't the 50 be able to?*
Click to expand...

Because I don't let Google or Apple do that, nor do most users.

Apple and Google have explicit privacy policies that cover this ( http://www.apple.com/privacy/ and http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ ). They are definitely telling you what they do with the data.

In particular your claim that "they" are selling the data is false, at least for Google. Google's policy explicitly says they do not share data (which makes sense, as that would be against their business model). Apple's does say it shares location data with partners, but also not selling it.

So at worst only ~20% of smartphone users (those who use Apple's products) should expect their location data to be shared, everyone else has the expectation that it will *NOT* be shared.
 
Weenis said:
And you can't remotely turn on a computer either :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct.

There are a lot of things possible that you have no clue about, so you shouldn't comment on them because you believe it to be true.
Click to expand...

I don't comment on things I have no clue about. This, however, is something I have a lot of knowledge about.
 
kllrnohj said:
Because I don't let Google or Apple do that, nor do most users.

Apple and Google have explicit privacy policies that cover this ( http://www.apple.com/privacy/ and http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ ). They are definitely telling you what they do with the data.

In particular your claim that "they" are selling the data is false, at least for Google. Google's policy explicitly says they do not share data (which makes sense, as that would be against their business model). Apple's does say it shares location data with partners, but also not selling it.

So at worst only ~20% of smartphone users (those who use Apple's products) should expect their location data to be shared, everyone else has the expectation that it will *NOT* be shared.
Click to expand...

If you use Siri, or Google Now like most people either do or don't have it expressly disabled...you share your geolocation data with Google or Apple or both. Most people (i.e. the 99% not on [H]) don't turn these things off and use them for convenience.

Just like if you have don't have "_nomap" appended to your LAN wifi SSID? If not, your SSID and wifi coverage is mapped and recorded by Google for geolocation...and whatever else. And I'll bet money you probably don'r have "_nomap" and the end of your wifi SSID.

What these guys say they do....and what they actually do are two different things. One doesn't even need to try very hard to find the privacy violations of these companies that are public.
 
Skripka said:
If you use Siri, or Google Now like most people either do or don't have it expressly disabled...you share your geolocation data with Google or Apple or both. Most people (i.e. the 99% not on [H]) don't turn these things off and use them for convenience.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in those cases I have clearly approved Google and Apple to use my location, the usage of which is covered by their respective privacy policies. In no way, shape, or form have I blanket approved everyone to access that information.

What these guys say they do....and what they actually do are two different things. One doesn't even need to try very hard to find the privacy violations of these companies that are public.
Click to expand...

False, both the FTC and the EU enforce privacy policies. And if you feel they are ignoring something (which you clearly do, given your comments), then you can file a class action lawsuit.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Wonder how this judge will feel when his cell phone gets tracked to a local whore house, and posted on front page of local newspaper??? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How is that bad? Must be an American thing.
 
kllrnohj said:
Yes, and in those cases I have clearly approved Google and Apple to use my location, the usage of which is covered by their respective privacy policies. In no way, shape, or form have I blanket approved everyone to access that information.



False, both the FTC and the EU enforce privacy policies. And if you feel they are ignoring something (which you clearly do, given your comments), then you can file a class action lawsuit.
Click to expand...

They "enforce" them all right...and handout slap-on-the-wrists fines to multi-billion dollar international giants. Imagine if for doing 200MPH through a 25MPH business zone the fine was 5 cents as of today, and you as the offender keep a full crack-staff of lawyers on retainer 24/7/365 so you don't have to be bothered by a court date. Guess what that 5 cent fine does to encourage abiding the law.
 
kllrnohj said:
Yes, that's correct.



I don't comment on things I have no clue about. This, however, is something I have a lot of knowledge about.
Click to expand...

Well computers can be remotely turned on, so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
 
Weenis said:
Well computers can be remotely turned on, so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. 0/2, care to try again?

A computer that's *asleep* can be remotely woken up, but one that is powered off can not.
 
Skripka said:
They "enforce" them all right...and handout slap-on-the-wrists fines to multi-billion dollar international giants. Imagine if for doing 200MPH through a 25MPH business zone the fine was 5 cents as of today, and you as the offender keep a full crack-staff of lawyers on retainer 24/7/365 so you don't have to be bothered by a court date. Guess what that 5 cent fine does to encourage abiding the law.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to something specific? I can't find any cases where Google violated their privacy policy, nor Apple violating theirs.
 
Weenis said:
Well computers can be remotely turned on, so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to Wake-on-Lan? In which case the computer is still technically "on", as it receives just enough power to keep the mobo/NIC on.

Afaik, cell phones do not have anything like this.
 
kllrnohj said:
Wrong and wrong. 0/2, care to try again?

A computer that's *asleep* can be remotely woken up, but one that is powered off can not.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never heard of out-of-band management before. A computer that is powered off (and not asleep) most certainly can be powered on remotely if it is set up that way.
 
kllrnohj said:
Are you referring to something specific? I can't find any cases where Google violated their privacy policy, nor Apple violating theirs.
Click to expand...

Well Google was fined..... LMAO. $7 million USD. LMAO ....For their StreetView activities...where they casually picked up unimportant non-private data things like passwords, email addys, etc from unsuspecting users...across a mere...38 States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/t...-view-privacy-breach.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In fairness that one happened all the way back in March. Did I mention they got a MASSIVE profit-breaking fine of $7million USD? Google earned $14 billion in revenue in the first 90 days of 2013...so that is almost an entire hour's worth of revenues from Google fined....and in case you're wondering I believe I did do my math correctly on all that.
 
You can in fact tract cell phones that are turned off, I've had the privilege of seeing it done. The only way to stop it is to take the battery out.
 
If you're in need of hiding from law enforcement, turning off the mobile phone and removing the sim card is simply common sense. :) Buy a burner phone and you're good to go.
 
damicatz said:
You've obviously never heard of out-of-band management before. A computer that is powered off (and not asleep) most certainly can be powered on remotely if it is set up that way.
Click to expand...

Nope. Out-of-band management isn't remote, it's local. You remotely talk to the *powered on* system than in turn basically pushes the power button on the physically attached computer.

So that's both not remote, and not powered off.

Seriously, if we had the technology to send signals to things that aren't using power, why the fuck wouldn't we use that when the device is turned ON?
 
Skripka said:
Well Google was fined..... LMAO. $7 million USD. LMAO ....For their StreetView activities...where they casually picked up unimportant non-private data things like passwords, email addys, etc from unsuspecting users...across a mere...38 States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/t...-view-privacy-breach.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In fairness that one happened all the way back in March. Did I mention they got a MASSIVE profit-breaking fine of $7million USD? Google earned $14 billion in revenue in the first 90 days of 2013...so that is almost an entire hour's worth of revenues from Google fined....and in case you're wondering I believe I did do my math correctly on all that.
Click to expand...

Wasn't a privacy policy violation. Care to try again?

By the way that wasn't a fine, it was a settlement (the settlement did include other conditions, btw). A settlement which probably also took into account that Google is the one that publicly disclosed they had collected the information in the first place. They weren't caught doing it, they came out themselves. There was no fine - turns out receiving stuff that's publicly broadcasted is the problem of the broadcaster, not the receiver.

rand4505 said:
You can in fact tract cell phones that are turned off, I've had the privilege of seeing it done. The only way to stop it is to take the battery out.
Click to expand...

No, you can't, and no, you didn't. You saw someone tracking a phone that was in standby, not powered off. When you shutdown a phone, the cell radio is turned off. You can't talk to a thing that's off, that's flat out impossible.
 
Did this fool not realize that my gps data is private between me and my carrier? The idea that this wouldn't require even the minimum of a 4th amendment due process and probable cause hearing is disturbing. The 4th amendment is fairly dead to this guy and I hope he gets overturned.
 
Somebody call Roto-Rooter for the Judge since it is abundantly clear he has a common sense blockage in his brain cavity.
 
If you are worried about being tracked- Stop using a debit card, credit card, rewards card, ANY card! And pull the battery from your cellphone.

You would have to stop using Gmail and any posting on the internet.

But you have to be a tinfoil hat user for that level of insanity. :D
 
This judge has never had to use a BlackBerry for work, or he'd know that powering off your phone means waiting a freaking half hour for the thing to boot back up :D
 
RealityCrunch said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by rand4505

You can in fact tract cell phones that are turned off, I've had the privilege of seeing it done. The only way to stop it is to take the battery out.

+ This
Click to expand...

phss...or you can go through t-mobile. Service is so craptastic not even the government could do anything to track me.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top