The Obama Administration is appealing a ruling in favor of privacy before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — seeking to allow it to track people by their cellphones and arguing that there is no privacy expectations to prevent tracking without probable cause. It is another example of Obama’s continued assault on civil liberties — and the failure of liberals to call him to account for such policies.
Cellphones are now the most popular form of telephonic communication. Many homes no longer use “land lines” in favor of cellphones. That makes the forthcoming ruling of the Third Circuit all the more important for civil liberties to protect the privacy of such users.
U.S. Circuit Judge Dolores Sloviter expressed the obvious dangers of the Obama effort to track such phones in oral argument: “You know there are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been. . . Can the government assure us that it will never try to find out these things? . . . Don’t we have to be concerned about this? Not this government right now, but a government?”
The Obama Administration took an extreme position that such concerns have little relevance because there is no privacy protection from such tracking of citizens — even without a showing of probable cause.
Privacy groups are fighting the Obama Administration, including the ACLU and EFF.
The Administration is relying on the 1986 Electronics Communications Privacy Act allows police to obtain “non-content” data without a warrant. It was a poorly written law with insufficient concern for civil liberties. The chief author of the law, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., seems to want to see a compromise affording the Administration the ability to track while protecting civil liberties. There is such a balance. It is called the probable cause provision of the United States Constitution. The government needs to show a judge that it has a basis for such surveillance.
For the full story, click here
I think that I have made clear in another post that the cell phone has less protection than land lines and that is tenuous at best.
The good. The Bad. And the Ugly.
Almost 10 years ago friends asked for my help in locating a missing relative. He was a truck driver with a history of drug problems. As I recall, he was a Native American Indian and the Tribal Police were heading up the investigation.
He had only been missing for about 36 hours when I was contacted, and after talking to the Tribal Police, I found that they were still working on getting a warrant. They didn’t expect to get anything for another day or two.
I found out who his cellular provider was, and luckily discovered it was a provider whose tech departtment I had established a good relationship. One phone call and about an hour later I had a triangulation of his last activity. I passed this information on to his relatives. A few hours later I was notified that they had found him inside his truck. He had been badly beaten, but was alive.
Was his privacy violated? Sure. In this case the information was used in the right way. It might have been the only thing that saved his life. But what about the person who just wants to get away for a while? Shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? I think so.
If I go someplace and I don’t want a record of that travel to exist. I turn off my cell phone, and I pull the battery out. (I’m not convinced that simply turning it off will prevent location.) If I wanted somebody to think they knew where I was going, I’d sacrifice my phone, and stick it to the underside of an 18-wheeler at a truck stop. A fully charged battery with the ring volume and vibration set to off will keep operating for about a week. I know. I’ve already given this too much thought. :>)
The cell phone is one of the most convenient tracking devices at the government’s disposal. The appeal is a matter of form only–it is already extremely easy for the government to track you using your cell phone and the requirement for a warrant in order for the tracking information to be admissible in court would only be a minor inconvenience. The only solution I know of is to turn the phone off, or not carry it. Note however that in at least one case I know of (sorry, I don’t have the citation at my fingertips), the fact that a suspect was not carrying his phone at the time of a crime was admitted into evidence to demonstrate an effort to cover his tracks. So amazingly if you choose privacy over convenience, that can also be used against you in court, with apparently no Fifth Amendment implications.
If you’re running from the gov’t. all you have to do is buy one of those go phones, and give your phone to a crackhead at the bus stop. But if you are the type of person the gov’t needs to find, you know that and more, but for the rest of us, who cares, really?
“….arguing that there is no privacy expectations in the use of such phones…”
This statement doesn’t at all mean what the words would lead one to think they mean. I believe there is most certainly an expectation of privacy from the users’ standpoint. What the statement actually means is that this expectaion by users is unfounded. It reinforces the ongoing assault on the privacy our tattered Constitution once guaranteed. It wasn’t a promise to the American people, it was guaranteed. Now—-not so much.
I never saw this coming. Back in 73′ we were just experimenting. We invented the Police Dispatch and then the next step was the 2# cell. It was a different time back then and you see where it has been taken.
If a warrant is required to obtain land line numbers called, then the same requirement should apply to cell phone data. They are both used to establish a circuit.
Nal,
Depending on what jurisdiction that you are in, the warrant requirements vary. While Landlines need a warrant to listen into. The advent of the portable phone made ease of listening into a phone call without a warrant that much easier. The cellphone to my understanding is not afforded that much protection.
Good afternoon Mr. AY.
It is indeed afternoon. How are you this fine sun shinny day? Ms. Eh?
Much better now that I am home from a Saturday morning shopping trip. Now sitting here with a nice glass of red wine reading the news. Not sunny here though, dark, damp and cold!!! How are you?
It seems like Smith v Maryland is the controlling opinion. Does not the cell phone user voluntarily convey their location to the cell phone company? I see no discernible difference between the number dialed, in the land line case, and the cell phone location in the wireless case. Both are necessary information for the proper functioning of the respective phone system. Either they both require a warrant, or neither do.
Ah a good merlot? Oh hell not to many bad merlots just the capacity for redemption in the next chug.
Was that an invitation (lol) Oh, I am great.
You see nal, where bad law starts. It is the extension of one bad ideal to another. The pen register is an affirmative act like into it the cellphone. It is like the blood draw of someone now is no longer a 5th amendment violation. I don’t know what could be more intrusive that 4/5th Amendment Violations.
It has been ruled that its not cruel and unusual punishment to force someone to take meds to make them sane, just in order to execute them. This is not a Violation of the 8th. I don’t know.
Pelee Island cabornet actually, very tasty and the right end to a Saturday shopping day !
I bet, a good cabornet is tasty. Does it have a thick plum or a tart cherry flavor? I presume it is a Canadian issue so would it have the preservatives that most American wines do?
So a glass is healthy for the heart.
tart cherry flavour, it is Canadian and I believe the Pelee wines are the preservative free ones. I am doing this only for heart health it has nothing what so ever to do with spending an hour and a half at Costco earlier today!
Ah good, those preservatives are what give a lot of people headaches. In the US it was about 1985 that they became regularly used. Shop at Costco at your own risk. Except for the “Unusual Items” I tend to stay away from them. Too Many people. So, just a glass and a chaser……The a chaser to chase the glass, then screw the glass, why bother……
Well when you have 2 growing teen aged boys in the house Costco is the only way to go. I must admit though I prefer it on a Monday evening when the crowds are at home having dinner.
There you go and then you can push you cart as fast or slow as you want. Pushing things instead of people. Still a bottle of wine sounds good…..
lol, I’m not planning to inhale the bottle….just having 1 glass. I really don’t often drink wine, most I don’t like. I was at a girls party thing for a short time last night, and accepted a glass of this. I liked it so much that I bought a bottle on my way home today.
Privacy, what privacy? Phones are one thing. But there’s just so much more. Without the parents knowing, one state conducts a “survey” on kids ages 10 and up. The questions are hysterically funny, or they would be if it weren’t being used as a ‘snitch and report’ tool at the taxpayers expense. I just had no idea my ten year old nephew would be tattling on me for buying scratch off state lottery tickets…lol. Question #54 is also interesting, I thought, given the narrow range of choices, none of which I’d pull in some big city neighborhoods…(cracking up). The “survey” is located here: http://beta.ctcdata.org/static_files/ctc_survey_.pdf
Eh okay.
I was at a girls party, oh that was a long time ago.
I’m sure this was different than the one you attended…hmmm on second thought maybe not so much. Early night though, I was in fact taking a small break from my job as personal chauffer to my son and his friends who went to see a movie. All plans for later in the evening were unexpectedly shot down.
Oh, and I was able to take that small break because my son has a cell phone that allows me to track him at all times!!
I liked early nights too. Now I like em even more and actually sleep. Yeah, I understand all other plans take back seat to the children and well, whatever else may come up.
Applied Digital Solutions Completes Merger Between Digital Angel.net and Destron Fearing Corporation. (PALM BEACH, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Sept. 11, 2000)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Applied+Digital+Solutions+Completes+Merger+Between+Digital+Angel.net…-a065127200
Background on Digital Angel(TM)
“In December of 1999, Applied Digital Solutions announced that it had acquired the patent rights to a miniature digital transceiver — which it has named Digital Angel. In some of its applications, the tiny device is expected to be bonded closely to the body or implanted just under the skin. The Company believes Digital Angel will be able to send and receive data and be located by GPS (Global Positioning System: see navigation satellite).”
My understanding is that first responders, firefighters and others were supplied with external PLDs (Personal Location Devices) when they were working at Ground Zero in NYC.
These devices (GPS implants) are getting smaller and may be as small as (or smaller than) .25″ by .05″ and Applied Digital has indicated that these devices will be rechargeable “without requiring any physical connection between the power source and the implant.” (source (link) below)
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32572)
So in the final analysis, cell phones may be the least of our worries.
I think that I’ll head for the wine now, myself.
Let me try to turn a negative about our cell phones into a positive”
”
> > 5 Things You Never Knew Your Cell Phone Could Do – For all the folks with cell phones.
> > (This should be printed and kept in your car, purse, and wallet. Good
> > information to have with you.)
> >
> > There are a few things that can be done in times of grave emergencies.
> > Your mobile phone can actually be a life saver or an emergency tool for survival. Check out the things that you can do with it:
> >
> > FIRST Emergency
> >
> > The Emergency Number worldwide for Mobile is 112. If you find yourself
> > out of the coverage area of your mobile network and there is an
> > Emergency, dial 112 and the mobile wi ll search any existing network
> > to establish the emergency number for you, and interestingly, this number 112 can be dialed even if the keypad is locked. Try it out.
> >
> > SECOND Have you locked your keys in the car?
> >
> > Does your car have remote keyless entry? This may come in handy
> > someday. Good reason to own a cell phone: If you lock your keys in the
> > car and the spare keys are at home, call someone at home on their cell
> > phone from your cell phone. Hold your cell phone about a foot from your car door and have the person at your home press the unlock button, holding it near the mobile phone on their end.
> > Your car will unlock. Saves someone from having to drive your keys to you. Distance is no object.
> > You could be hundreds of miles away, and if you can reach someone who has the other ‘ remote ‘
> > for your car, you can unlock the doors (or the trunk). Editor’s note: It works fine! We tried it
> > out and it unlocked our car over a cell phone!
> >
> > THIRD Hidden Battery Power
> >
> > Imagine your cell battery is very low. To activate, press the keys
> > *3370#. Your cell phone will restart with this reserve and the
> > instrument will show a 50% increase in battery. This reserve will get charged when you charge your cell phone next time.
> >
> > FOURTH How to disable a STOLEN mobile phone?
> >
> > To check your mobile phone’ s serial number, key in the following digits on your phone: *#06#.
> > A 15-digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down
> > and keep it somewhere safe. If your phone gets stolen, you can phone
> > your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the
> > SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won’t get your phone back, but at
> > least you know that whoever stole it can’t use/sell it either. If everybody does this, there would
> > be no point in people stealing mobile phones.
> >
> > And finally…..
> >
> > FIFTH Free Directory Service for Cells
> >
> > Cell phone companies are charging us $1.00 to $1.75 or more for
> > 411information calls when they don’t have to. Most of us do not carry
> > a telephone directory in our vehicle, which makes this situation even
> > more of a problem. When you need to use the 411 information option,
> > simply dial: (800)FREE411, or (800)373-3411 without incurring any charge at all. Program this into your phone”
“If you’re running from the gov’t. all you have to do is buy one of those go phones, and give your phone to a crackhead at the bus stop. But if you are the type of person the gov’t needs to find, you know that and more, but for the rest of us, who cares, really?” – peterpunkineater
No one really….except for maybe those of us who don’t want to live in an undemocratic police state.
Why do you ask?
The empire keeps striking back … eh?
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/02/empire-strikes-back-2.html
Slightly off-topic, perhaps, but I’m reposting a link to the following article (Dredd — You’ve probably read it, but just in case you missed it.) I’m also posting the Coin Powell/Terror Industril Complex YouTube link:
Friday, Jan 15, 2010 08:16 EST
Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/
And to Thirty Percenter: Thanks for your response to “peterpunkineater”.
Colin Powell warns of “Terror Industrial Complex” w/ Keith Olbermann 10/15/2009
Colin Powell warns of “Terror Industrial Complex” w/ Keith Olbermann 10/15/2009
(For some reason, I couldn’t embed it.)
This is one more example of the Obama administration taking the same low road that the Bush regime took in attacking civil liberties. I am hopeful that the court will smack them down.
rafflaw,
I am hoping that they will see the light and do what is right. I read today that another Sct vacancy may happen this year.
If the people are so inclined they may just fashion a decision that keeps the hope for the next appointment.
I long for the days of the time when even if you disagreed with someone they would still be your friend. Not so much today, it is taken personal and retribution flows.
Congress can always take this decision away from the judge but with what civil liberties they allowed to be sold during the Bush years I don’t think that I trust them.
However, one nice thing to read today, Bush still gets the blame for the economy even with traditional republican bases. I think I read that just 10 per cent blame not only the president and congress but wall street. The Republicans got 52 per cent of the blame.
Well if its 52 percent before this acknowledgement then it should go up:
Senate Republicans: Filibuster everything to win in November?
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to limit and often derail Democrats’ initiatives, paralyzing the Senate and making it nearly impossible to accomplish even the most routine matters
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/84487.html
And the Democrats aren’t helping themselves,they seemed to be taking positions even with their so called majority that a skilled contortionist would seem to envy.
Adequate & Independent State Grounds
The State of New York does not permit warrantless GPS tracking.
See People v. Weaver
The Highest Court of New York State Protects Privacy from GPS Monitoring
By SHERRY F. COLB
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
“Last month, in People v. Weaver, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York State, held that before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car and continuously monitoring the car’s whereabouts for 65 days, the police should have obtained a search warrant.
In so holding, the court relied exclusively on the New York State Constitution’s analogue to the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court thereby insulated its decision from reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court (because a state’s highest court has the final word on the construction of state law). ”
(continued)
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/colb/20090624.html
America Unrestored
January 2010
An Assessment Of The Obama Administration’s Fulfillment Of ACLU Recommended “Actions For Restoring America”
http://www.aclu.org/america-unrestored
http://www.aclu.org/files/pages/americaunrestored_11_20100119.pdf
Bob, Esq.
Thank you.
Unlock Your Car Door with a Cell Phone
An urban legend!
Both cell phones and land lines may use the Internet, and therefore communication satellites, for some transmissions, especially but not exclusively for overseas communications. Cell phones are by invention, wireless. Nowadays “land lines” are, in reality, only that for the final run to the user’s phone.
Nal or anyone interested,
I found this on another site. This is a exert out of the Governments arguments for the ability to track. I wonder if someone should track the governments employees movements and then anonymously send them to them. I wonder how they would like it?
“1986 Privacy Act
He replied that the relevant law does not require them. Eckenwiler said probable-cause warrants are only needed to obtain the contents of electronic communications, such as a text or e-mail, or to wiretap a phone. He believes the 1986 Electronics Communications Privacy Act allows police to obtain “non-content” data without a warrant.”
Most people are not aware of the ability that the US helped out the Sandinista’s in South America. The term Blackberry makes me cringe. It was a British operative that provided mercenaries the cellular ability to pick out where anyone was at anyone time. We did not get involved unless you consider satellites’ being lifted into space under the guise of “Star Wars.”
The British government tracked the movements of the various entities engaged in assistance. Therefore I can see the governments arguments that this is not technically surveillance. They have done it for years and it is common place.
AY – Could you post the link?
einobob:
THANK YOU FOR THE PHONE TIPS, AWESOME
Happy Valentines Day!
“He believes the 1986 Electronics Communications Privacy Act allows police to obtain “non-content” data without a warrant.”
Non-content data. Precious.
AY,
Do you see how a New Yorker can seek refuge from the Fed interpretation of the 4th Amendment via adequate and independent state grounds under the state constitution?
Bob, Esq.
I can see where this is applicable to state cases. But say if the Feds get this information and it is supplied to a state agency, what is to stop them from sharing that very same information?
It is not like they are going to say hey we can’t help you. A lot of times state cases are dismissed if something Good happens to the Federal case. They use it as a bargaining tool.
I see that at the present time it may be a small hurdle to jump through. But there is an end run around.
A N,
I am sorry I cannot at this time. Though I would like to very much.
AY: I can see where this is applicable to state cases. But say if the Feds get this information and it is supplied to a state agency, what is to stop them from sharing that very same information?”
State Constitution trumps; Fed sets the floor of rights, state constitution sets the ceiling.
IOW, The Fed can’t deny more rights than the state constitution is recognizing.
(It’s tough to see it at first, since most of the case law has usually been the other way around; i.e. a fed SCOTUS Court setting the floor for the states in lieu of the state setting the ceiling.)
Bob. Esq,
I can see what this means. I suppose the point that I am trying to make is, what would stop the Feds from doing in Federal Court what the state courts state that they can’t? In that arena I think the Supremacy Clause would trump a state charge. In the same breath, I think if a state charge was lost in State court that the Federal Court will pick it up if they can obtain Jurisdiction. I am aware of a 6th Circuit Court Case where they did just that. The guy was convicted because a death occurred on a river that flowed into a Federal Reserve a shoe to be exact. The statement was it could have happened here. The guy was convicted in Federal Court. The state had screwed it up so bad.
So, the point is if the state wants information. And the State court has declined to allow this to happen and it is fully permissible under Federal Law. I am sure that the A&I state grounds argument will fly out of the window and Feds will boot strap it to some Federal Case.
I can even see this with an activity that is purely within state preview and is the Lottery. Same one person scams it and the state screws up the investigation. The multi state lottery will come into play and the Feds will pick it up.
I can think of very little activity that is solely within a single states jurisdiction anymore. Used to say child support was a state function and so did they. Now under URESSA that is under Federal authority. It is just a matter of time before it goes to Federal Court and the states are merely a collection agency. That is my 2cents on that.
I think there are a lot of unintended consequences with too much Federal Law. I just love that RWR, GHWB and GWB stated over and over State rights, State rights yada, yada, yada. Be careful. They are the ones that took the most away.
I remember one time I had a Judge in a cracker Box and he called the Head of the State FOC to assist him. I was entitled to sanctions based upon what another attorney did based upon the existing law. Still the law. The only things that the judge was able to do was deny them and state that the attorney make a Good Faith Argument to change modify the law, etc.
I was unsure if I was going to jail about 90 per cent of the time. But that judge was a Republican appointee. One day after W stole the election he stated something about how great America was. I stated how I felt about Presidents stealing the election and what I thought of Fraudulent Politicians including the one that appointed him. Well we never got along to well after that.
Feb 16th, 2010
Posted by Stacy Harbaugh, ACLU of Wisconsin at 12:52pm
GPS Tracking: Turning Science Fiction Into Reality
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/gps-tracking-turning-science-fiction-reality
AY: If you see this, thanks for your response about the link. (Very limited computer time these days (related largely to work), so I’m frequently in a position of having to skim and post quick comments.)
anon nurse,
That is total bullshit. I can see the damn Judge saying that if they have a RO on them then they have the right to put a tracker on the vehicle.
“Unfortunately, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, we should let go of the expectation that police need permission to track our movements.” (from the aforementioned ACLU article)
Given my vantage point, some in law enforcement now believe that they have the right “to track” even law-abiding citizens — that they have carte-blanche.
I see where the ACLU has stated it position and I agree. Your license plates have those 3 rings in the center that show the subliminal out line of the state. These are from what I understand a tracking mechanism as well. The vehicle are equipped with lots of electronics and an article I read stated that the police have the ability to slow down stolen vehicles.
“OnStar says its new stolen vehicle service will remotely reduce the flow of fuel to an engine in a stolen car.”
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202400922
If memory serves me correctly a vehicle is fully electronically integrated if it does not have an outside antenna. Hence the vehicle can be subjected to police control if it does not have an outside antenna.
If they can “send a remote signal” to slow down the vehicle, I have to wonder what else they might be able to do in this “brave new world.”
anon nurse,
I do not believe that they can totally disable a vehicle but they can slow it down so that a safe pursuit possible. I do believe that I read an article out of Crain’s Detroit that mentioned this as possible technology about 20-25 or so years ago.
About 10 years ago I went to a Christmas party in Grosse Ile, MI. It was an interesting one as the people who hosted the party were the inventors of the Mustang concept car. Interesting tidbit, the original Mustang’s engine was in the rear of the car and designed as a two seater….
AY,
Federal courts are obliged to follow state law and state constitutional law as well as the state court interpretations of same.
AY,
If you know of a case in which SCOTUS curtailed the state constitutional rights of an individual please point me to it.