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
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…..
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.
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……
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!
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.
Pelee Island cabornet actually, very tasty and the right end to a Saturday shopping day !
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.
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.
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.
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 is indeed afternoon. How are you this fine sun shinny day? Ms. Eh?
Good afternoon Mr. AY.
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.
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.
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.
“….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.
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?
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.
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. :>)
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.