No warrant needed for cell phone location data

[Dustbuster]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has joined two other federal appeals courts to rule that law enforcement can obtain cellphone location data from communication companies without a warrant as it should not be considered protected under the Fourth Amendment.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/31/court-no-warrant-required-for-cellphone-location-data-because-its-clearly-a-business-record/

 

 

good read, makes sense...

[RED333]

I wonder if the info can be used to prove an alibi, I would hope so, might be a good thing sometimes.

[E4 No More]

I wonder if the info can be used to prove an alibi, I would hope so, might be a good thing sometimes.

They wouldn't use it to prove an alibi; they'd use it only to disprove one.

[RobertNashville]

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I don't like it but is it "Constitutional"?  I suppose in part it depends on why they are using the data for doesn't it? I mean, the data itself is neither good or bad...I can certainly see it being used for both good and bad!

 

I think an important consideration that the court mentioned is that no one is required to possess a cell phone; all of us who use them volunteered for the trip. As difficult as it is to contemplate, the proliferation of cell phones has really only happened within the past 20 years - it wasn't long that before that if you actually wanted to talk to someone you had to either call their home or go to where they were...we really could live without them right now if we actually wanted to do so.

 

We don't even have to give up the "security" of a having a cell phone...a deactivated cell phone is still good for true "911" emergencies because even a cell phone that is not active will still dial 911 so long as the battery is charged.

[RED333]

The location data has been used to find crash victims before where the car can not be seen.

Still dont "like" the fact about no warrant.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I don't like it but is it "Constitutional"?  I suppose in part it depends on why they are using the data for doesn't it? I mean, the data itself is neither good or bad...I can certainly see it being used for both good and bad!

 

I think an important consideration that the court mentioned is that no one is required to possess a cell phone; all of us who use them volunteered for the trip. As difficult as it is to contemplate, the proliferation of cell phones has really only happened within the past 20 years - it wasn't long that before that if you actually wanted to talk to someone you had to either call their home or go to where they were...we really could live without them right now if we actually wanted to do so.

 

We don't even have to give up the "security" of a having a cell phone...a deactivated cell phone is still good for true "911" emergencies because even a cell phone that is not active will still dial 911 so long as the battery is charged.

But you do pay a fee to a private company to use that phone. That should be protected privacy if you use your phone,

unless you give away that privacy, just like any other expectation of privacy.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Don't worry. The court will eventually determine that it is constitutional for the authorities to force relatives of the deceased to pay for the bullets used to put him down. :)

[bersaguy]

Well, I don't plan on robbing any banks or breaking any laws that would cause them to want to hunt me down to begin with and with the cell phone company I use they would be lucky if the company even keeps the records plus there are so many places it does not have service they would be extremely lucky to triangulate anything I did............. :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Dustbuster]

Call detail records with tower location data and more can show where a device has been and more. It can be used in court to validate or impeach a witness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[McGarrett]

Call detail records with tower location data and more can show where a device has been and more. It can be used in court to validate or impeach a witness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

It would be hard to prove who had the phone in their possession while tracking it. You could leave your phone at home while committing a crime on the other side of town but I am not sure if that would act as an alibi or prove anything the same as you could say someone else had your phone or you left it in their car and deny you were at the specified location. Not sure it would hold much water in court but it might aid le in the investigation of a crime or help locate a suspect, fugitive, or victim.

 

If big brother looks up my cell phone it will be very boring tracking the locations. Work, home, work, home. gas station.. church, etc. I live 6 miles from work, I guess I don't get out much. I see cell phones as mostly a nuisance but good for emergencies. Rarely ever talk on it, only for my business calls after hours, business phone forwards to it when I am on-call. No pics, no smartphone, just calls and only a handful of them. They can track mine but it won't help them much because they already know where I live and work and the route to and from.

[TMF]

The reasoning they used to justify this as consitutional kinda paves the way for the gov to access tracking devices that come factory installed in cars sans warrant.  What doesn't bother me about this is that law enforcement just doesn't have the capacity to maintain a citizen database that can be quick referenced to track each and every person at the click of a mouse.  To get the records and conduct the analysis of even one person is time consuming.  What does bother me about this is how this can, and potentially will, be misused.  I may have had a different opinion a few years ago, but after the whole IRS/Tea Party thing and any one of the dozens of DOJ scandals, I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt any more.  The leeway that is given on the fringes of the Constitution is allowing for way too much politically motivated targeting by whoever sits in the CEO chair.  More and more the gov keeps getting caught doing what 3rd world dictators do to target the opposition.

 

Perhaps someone can correct me if I read this wrong, but the way I understand it this is constitutional because they are accessing business records, not personal information.  Could not the same logic be used to access your bank accounts without a warrant?  Banks are a private entity, and all your bank records are business records for that entity.  Also, couldn't the cell phone companies just tell the gov to pound sand if they request records? 

[Dustbuster]

Not hard to prove who has a phone in their possession, although circumstances vary. There aren't enough big brothers to watch as one may think. The CDR's are a vital crime fighting tool. Device location data gets convictions and exonerations. Point of the post is no warrant is needed after the fact according to the appeals in 5th circuit fed court...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[TMF]

Not hard to prove who has a phone in their possession, although circumstances vary. There aren't enough big brothers to watch as one may think. The CDR's are a vital crime fighting tool. Device location data gets convictions and exonerations. Point of the post is no warrant is needed after the fact according to the appeals in 5th circuit fed court...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

 

 

Not hard to prove who has a phone in their possession, although circumstances vary. There aren't enough big brothers to watch as one may think. The CDR's are a vital crime fighting tool. Device location data gets convictions and exonerations. Point of the post is no warrant is needed after the fact according to the appeals in 5th circuit fed court...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

 

I have no doubt it is a vital crime fighting tool.  However, if there is suspicion of a crime being committed by an individual what's so hard about getting a warrant?  I don't think the issue is about how useful a tool it is, it's how they go about accessing that tool.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Business records should be just as protected as individual privacy. The trouble is that the government has so

many ways to access that information, now. The addition of all the "metadata", and I don't know what all that

encompasses, from the NSA, all data the IRS has access to, makes for a bunch of information at  their fingertips.

 

I think they just took it, also, without asking or having any valid reason.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There aren't enough big brothers to watch as one may think.

Assuming it to be true that there are not enough big brothers to watch at the current time, doesn't pertinent. The ruling, having already been made, will equally apply in the future when the government has built out monitoring capabilities superior to jehovah's "no sparrow shall fall" surveillance system. :) Edited September 27, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

But you do pay a fee to a private company to use that phone. That should be protected privacy if you use your phone,

unless you give away that privacy, just like any other expectation of privacy.

You also pay money for a vehicle and modern vehicles collect all sorts of data...if police want access to that data do they need a warrant for it?  I'm thinking not but I really don't know???

[Dustbuster]

The carriers don't hand it out freely there's a process that goes with it. The general public cant access it Like a form 4 if its not done properly it gets kicked back.even more interesting is most subscribers don't realize that when they agree to service providers contract some of your rights go out the window. I'd fear big brother checking my gun purchases more than cell tower dump data.... Fwiw On car black boxes if the car is privately owned , not involved in anything,yes u need a warrant. If the car has been seized as part of an arrest diff story... Most agencies will err on the side of caution and get a warrant for everything. The device location data was questioned and stood fast. Location based services is something most people agree to without realizing what it is...a business record... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling. Edited September 27, 2013 by Dustbuster

[RobertNashville]

I guess overall, while I don't like any form of government snooping (be it law enforcement or any other government/quasi-governmental agency) I don't get terribly excited about it so long as I have a way "out".

 

If I don't want the government snooping through my email, text messages or cell phone I can used actual letters sent through the mail (or other carrier) and not use a cell phone. If I don't want them tracking what I buy and and where I buy it I can use cash rather than a debit/credit card.  While doing those things can be terribly inconvenient that's actually how we ALL lived just a few short years ago.

 

Where I really get bothered is government snooping when I have no viable way to "opt out"

[TMF]

I guess overall, while I don't like any form of government snooping (be it law enforcement or any other government/quasi-governmental agency) I don't get terribly excited about it so long as I have a way "out".

If I don't want the government snooping through my email, text messages or cell phone I can used actual letters sent through the mail (or other carrier) and not use a cell phone. If I don't want them tracking what I buy and and where I buy it I can use cash rather than a debit/credit card. While doing those things can be terribly inconvenient that's actually how we ALL lived just a few short years ago.

Where I really get bothered is government snooping when I have no viable way to "opt out"

It's the principle of it though. None of us should be worried about this affecting us individually unless we're suspected of committing a crime, but I don't think that is the point here. This just seems like a very back door sort of way to skirt the Constitution, and that affects us as a whole.

[RobertNashville]

It's the principle of it though. None of us should be worried about this affecting us individually unless we're suspected of committing a crime, but I don't think that is the point here. This just seems like a very back door sort of way to skirt the Constitution, and that affects us as a whole.

I don't really disagree...I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced whether this cell phone business is or isn't constitutional.

 

Technology makes easily possible what either was not possible before or was possible only with exerting a lot of effort.  Think of "instant credit"...30 years ago no business or bank would lend any significant amount of money to someone without a thorough credit background and even then it was often limited to what was available locally (the local credit bureau office, etc.)...today; a company in LA can grant credit to someone in TN in a matter of seconds with no human involvement at all because it's all based on "data" collected from everywhere and transmitted at the speed of light.

 

If I know your address I can, right now, find out what you paid for your house and the name of your spouse in just a few seconds from the PC I'm sitting at now...I could have done the same thing 30 years ago too but I would have had to go to the paper records located in the county you live in...is one method necessarily better or worse than the other???  Much of the information we consider "private" has never reel been private; it just wasn't as easily available to someone as it is today.

 

I don't think there are really easy answers here and I suspect that both individuals, governments and the courts are going to be fighting this battle for a long time to come.