No Warrant Needed For Cellphone Location Data

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a ruling from 2015 requiring a warrant for cellphone location data. The court said that obtaining cell-site information did not violate the Fourth Amendment because cellphone users know they are being tracked by their carriers.

Police do not need a warrant to obtain a person's cellphone location data held by wireless carriers, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday, dealing a setback to privacy advocates. The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, voted 12-3 that the government can get the information under a decades-old legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company.
 
What about reasonable right to security? I mean, isn't tracking someone constantly abusive? Surely there's law for tracking with other methods, and requiring warrants...

Well, guess this goes to the supreme Court?
 
That's a huge load. I have hope that it will be overturned. As Assoc. Justice Sotomayor states, "...it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks."
 
- I'm going to punch you in the face.

- Nah man.. Don....OUCH!!! What the hell man?

- What? I told you I was going to.
 
Last edited:
I think that the general public expects data shared with companies to come with some measure of privacy (and therefore the ubiquitous existence of privacy statements and agreements) means that location data collected and retained by any third party -- whether a wireless phone company, app, security device or otherwise -- would pass as a reasonable expectation of privacy per the Supreme Court's "reasonable expectation of privacy" test established in Katz v. US. This test includes the following: Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy – An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society. I would think that anyone would expect that the customer data retained by the wireless provider to be considered private information between the provider and themselves. This is underscored by court cases that have ruled that providers cannot sell the customer's data to another party without the customer's consent. That this was a 12-3 ruling is seriously disturbing, and I think the specific case being brought up is causing bias.
 
If you know you are being spieed on then it does not break the 4th amendment. LOL Logic Fail of the week.

Just get your pitchforks already and man up. Criminals are running the USA.
 
rezerekted said:
If you know you are being spieed on then it does not break the 4th amendment. LOL Logic Fail of the week.

Just get your pitchforks already and man up. Criminals are running the USA.
Click to expand...

This does make sense in some situations. For instance, if you hang up a flier at the local laundromat, there is no expectation of privacy for the information located on that flier. It can, therefore, be used in a case against you without the need for a warrant to collect that flier, despite it being your personal possession. In that case, it does make sense. In this case, it makes no sense.
 
NExUS1g said:
This does make sense in some situations. For instance, if you hang up a flier at the local laundromat, there is no expectation of privacy for the information located on that flier. It can, therefore, be used in a case against you without the need for a warrant to collect that flier, despite it being your personal possession. In that case, it does make sense. In this case, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

So really where does data begin and end and who exactly does it belong to? I don't for an instant believe that I have full privacy to anything data related. We let those apps record location data, for some computer to give us better advertisements. For the convenience of getting the weather without having to type in a zip code. For mapping services.

It may not be popular but I can see it as the data on my phone is mine, the data at the tower however, I don't exclusively own.

Just seems to me we need to update laws that adequately reflect better privacy for the citizen. Or simply don't use the technology.
 
This particular Court of Appeals in Richmond has been used frequently as an arm of the "surveillence-industrial-complex" to overturn with any "troublesome" rulings that protect privacy and due process. Disappointing to see it happen yet again, but the fight goes on.

Worse, its a horrific rationale that has HUGE wide ranging consequences as a precedent if it stands.
 
Gavv said:
So really where does data begin and end and who exactly does it belong to? I don't for an instant believe that I have full privacy to anything data related. We let those apps record location data, for some computer to give us better advertisements. For the convenience of getting the weather without having to type in a zip code. For mapping services.

It may not be popular but I can see it as the data on my phone is mine, the data at the tower however, I don't exclusively own.

Just seems to me we need to update laws that adequately reflect better privacy for the citizen. Or simply don't use the technology.
Click to expand...

You're right. Like I mentioned earlier, the third-party exemption is simply not applicable to most areas of information technology. If you're throwing something up on Facebook, that's a matter entirely different from your username and password you use to log into Facebook, and anyone would have the reasonable expectation of privacy for the latter but not the former.
 
So wait, I know all the cameras are watching "everybody" so law enforcement can now break down my door anytime because "I know I can be watched"?!? WTF?!?

You know what? All the surveillance we are all under in the U.S. is the biggest social-engineering hack -- EVER.
 
amddragonpc said:
So wait, I know all the cameras are watching "everybody" so law enforcement can now break down my door anytime because "I know I can be watched"?!? WTF?!?

You know what? All the surveillance we are all under in the U.S. is the biggest social-engineering hack -- EVER.
Click to expand...

That is not what the article is saying. What it is saying is that in terms of cell phones, they can go through the cell company and get your location data from the tower to build their case. To break down your door, they will still need a warrant.
 
And people (especially the "media") will uncritically approve it, describing it as yet another stroke of genius from the Silicon Valley corporate elite.
Ordeith said:
Google is working on it, and will implement it as soon as they deem it wouldn't be crossing their aribtrary "creepy line"
Click to expand...
 
Judge: "Your evidence was obtained without a warrant. How is the evidence permissible in court?"
Prosecutor: "Well, we have a copy of an email sent to a phone company indicating police intended to break the law. That makes it okay, right?"
 
Well if "The Fappening" taught us anything, is that cell phone users often don't know jack shit about what their phones are doing.
 
This is kinda BS, because by law they have to collect this data. Is it really too hard to get a fucking warrant? If you can't get a warrant, then maybe you don't need that information. I wonder if the court changes hands if they'd choose to hear the case. IMO, it's pretty clear that the conservative nominees tend to defer to law enforcement more than the liberals.
 
BloodyIron said:
What about reasonable right to security? I mean, isn't tracking someone constantly abusive? Surely there's law for tracking with other methods, and requiring warrants...

Well, guess this goes to the supreme Court?
Click to expand...

Remember, in this case, the government isn't really the one's doing the tracking. It's the cell phone carriers by collecting and maintaining the tracking data that the government is then requesting from the carrier.

That being said ...... notice the wording and that they classify the carrier as "a third party".

The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, voted 12-3 that the government can get the information under a decades-old legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company.
Click to expand...

Now if this tracking data is the result of a phone call made from myself to my wife for instance, then yes, I would consider the carrier as a third party to the content of that conversation. But in this case, when I call my wife, does her phone receive the location tracking data for where I am calling from? If not, then only myself and my carrier are "parties to that data" and the carrier is a principle and not a "third party" to the tracking data that was generated as a product of the call I placed to my wife.

Perhaps I missed a great opportunity to be a lawyer :cautious:
 
Xaeos said:
This particular Court of Appeals in Richmond has been used frequently as an arm of the "surveillence-industrial-complex" to overturn with any "troublesome" rulings that protect privacy and due process. Disappointing to see it happen yet again, but the fight goes on.

Worse, its a horrific rationale that has HUGE wide ranging consequences as a precedent if it stands.
Click to expand...

I can't say I know enough about this court's track record to argue your claim one way or the other. And I lack the energy to dig into it without any specifics at all as to which rulings you may be refering to.

But I find an issue with your second statement.

I don't think there is a basic problem with the precedent itself that was applied in this case. hat I mean is the precedent itself was not improper for the case that formed it's origin.

I do however have a problem with how the precedent was applied in this case, specifically, that the cell phone carrier is characterized as a third party in this case.

I believe in this case, the cell phone carrier is actually a principle party to the information and not a third party at all.

Because I don't have enough information to agree with your claim that this particular court is corrupt, I must instead surmise that it's just sloppiness on the part of the court. I'll give them a buy on being purposeful assholes and instead they can wear the title of clumsy dickheads.
 
lcpiper said:
Remember, in this case, the government isn't really the one's doing the tracking. It's the cell phone carriers by collecting and maintaining the tracking data that the government is then requesting from the carrier.

That being said ...... notice the wording and that they classify the carrier as "a third party".
Click to expand...

Maybe if it's within 6 months, but after that, the data is held, because we're required to by law so that law enforcement can get the data. Since we keep the original CDRs for 6 months, we don't need this other warehouse, but the Feds require it.

Now if this tracking data is the result of a phone call made from myself to my wife for instance, then yes, I would consider the carrier as a third party to the content of that conversation. But in this case, when I call my wife, does her phone receive the location tracking data for where I am calling from? If not, then only myself and my carrier are "parties to that data" and the carrier is a principle and not a "third party" to the tracking data that was generated as a product of the call I placed to my wife.

Perhaps I missed a great opportunity to be a lawyer :cautious:
Click to expand...
Even then we only have that data (beyond 6 months) because the Feds require it. Otherwise, we keep it long enough so that someone can challenge incorrect billing and that's it. What law enforcement requests is from a database that exists because of them.
 
Keep your phone in a microwave oven when not using it. Microwave ovens are designed to keep similar frequency radiation from penetrating, so no signal can reach it while its in there, and you can't be tracked.
 
nilepez said:
Maybe if it's within 6 months, but after that, the data is held, because we're required to by law so that law enforcement can get the data. Since we keep the original CDRs for 6 months, we don't need this other warehouse, but the Feds require it.
Click to expand...

I must confess, I need to catch up, I am not sure what warehouse you are referring too. My understanding from skimming the initial part of the article was this was only about tracking data the feds were requesting from the carriers.



oookkkk, nilepez, I am at a loss. I found no reference to what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?


"damn, lights are going out, tomorrow".
 
EODetroit said:
Keep your phone in a microwave oven when not using it. Microwave ovens are designed to keep similar frequency radiation from penetrating, so no signal can reach it while its in there, and you can't be tracked.
Click to expand...

Or you could just put it in airplane mode. Also, I stuck mine in the microwave and it never lost the signal.
 
lcpiper said:
I must confess, I need to catch up, I am not sure what warehouse you are referring too. My understanding from skimming the initial part of the article was this was only about tracking data the feds were requesting from the carriers.

oookkkk, nilepez, I am at a loss. I found no reference to what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?

"damn, lights are going out, tomorrow".
Click to expand...

It's a database that each carrier must keep that that has years worth of phone calls and cell tower data which is searchable whenever we get a law enforcement request. I call it a data warehouse, because it's kinda like where they put the ark of the covenant at the end of Raiders....if that warehouse was searchable.

I should add we get tons of requests every day (hundreds) and we're a small carrier. I suspect Verizon get's tens of thousands/day.
 
Devil's advocate here... what about the tens of thousands of missing persons / suicidal individuals / mental health crisis involved people that occur nation wide every year ? With most warrant processes they are not difficult per se, but they are very time consuming.

Without the ability of a local municipality to contact and get this information from a carrier, many people would / could die.

That said, the current process is already quite time consuming and the carrier's need considerable information from LE to provide this information in the first place, such as exigency on why this information is needed.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong for "the government" to have this information, just that it is never that black and white.

My .02
 
geforce man said:
Devil's advocate here... what about the tens of thousands of missing persons / suicidal individuals / mental health crisis involved people that occur nation wide every year ? With most warrant processes they are not difficult per se, but they are very time consuming.

Without the ability of a local municipality to contact and get this information from a carrier, many people would / could die.

That said, the current process is already quite time consuming and the carrier's need considerable information from LE to provide this information in the first place, such as exigency on why this information is needed.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong for "the government" to have this information, just that it is never that black and white.

My .02
Click to expand...

A warrantless search and seizure can be performed if there is articulable reasoning to point to life or property being in imminent danger. A court reviews the case after the fact and either approves the act as warranted or denies it, at which point there is a violation of civil liberties.
 
Another reason for cell phone customers to demand the ability to disable ALL tracking on and of their phones if they so desire!

This de facto tracking has now put to the side our legal rights in actions taken by our government :rage:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top