You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama Administration Pushes for Tracking Cell Phones
2010-02-12
Chip, chip, chip. W wanted to gather info on foreign terrorists and oh how the Dems howled. Looks like things have come full circle now that they think they can use it to expand governmental control of people's lives.
Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
Posted by:gorb

#4  "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off"

I wouldn't how how to do that (or that I could). You gonna come down here and turn mine off for me, judgie?

They chip and chip away at our freedom and privacy by saying they're doing it to catch criminals. While I don't like most criminals and what they do, where in the Constitution does it say criminals don't have the same rights as the rest of us? They're not criminals until they're convicted. And don't think for one minute some gummint thug won't use this against someone who just disagrees with the gummint.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-02-12 11:37  

#3  "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off."
Not necessarily. The GPS locator is active even if turned off. The battery must be removed which is difficult in the newer phones.

The court has ruled there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using the internet. Isn't this the same thing? Since this technology is used for good tracking of lost or kidnapped people, only crooks, druggies, pimps, and other ne'er-do-wells would have anything to worry about, making the argument for privacy rights suspicious if not indefensible. Interesting about-face.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2010-02-12 11:26  

#2  I can tell Bambi's lying - his lips are moving.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-02-12 10:34  

#1  salondotcom

Obama has, in the past, emphatically opposed warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty. In response to emails his campaign has received over the past couple days, he has been sending out an email containing the following statements:

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was in regard to the conduct of the Iraq war or its restrictions on our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs or suspension of habeas corpus. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and rejecting this unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity is a good place to start.
Posted by: Willy   2010-02-12 10:20  

00:00