Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Feds Have Access To Cellphone Tracking On Request

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 23, 2007 03:17 PM
from the always-fun-to-carry-your-phone dept.
Privacy Government Cellphones United States News
Mike writes "According to a Washington Post article, federal officials are routinely asking and getting courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data on subscribers. The data is used to pinpoint the whereabouts of 'criminal suspects', according to judges and industry lawyers. In some cases, judges have granted the requests without even requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime 'Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives. Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Federal Cellphone Tracking On Request by Anonymous Coward
[+] US Justice Dept. Sued For Cellular Tracking Information 75 comments
tpaudio writes "The ACLU and the EFF are suing the Department of Justice over how the government might be using GPS and location data from cell phones. With over 200 million Americans carrying cell phones, this could be pretty important for setting guidelines. We have already seen other frightening powers related to cell phones, such as 'cell mic tapping.'" The ACLU press release is also available, and it contains links to the complaint and the Freedom of Information Act request. We've previously discussed instances of cell phone tracking in the US and elsewhere.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Feds Have Access To Cellphone Tracking On Request 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This just in (Score:5, Funny)

    by pwnies (1034518) * <jjcm.linux+slashdot@gmail.com> on Friday November 23 2007, @03:18PM (#21456371) Homepage Journal
    ...and in unrelated news, Reynolds America Inc. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RAI [yahoo.com] ) reported a rise in their stock price following record sales in their aluminium and tin foil divisions.

    • Re:This just in (Score:5, Interesting)

      by neomunk (913773) on Friday November 23 2007, @08:07PM (#21458973)
      That's cute.

      The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.

      When will it get to the point where the people who AREN'T paranoid about being constantly watched are mocked as the fools? Or is this subtle transition between 'you're crazy, that'll never happen' and 'what are you worried about, you're not a terrorist are you?' all the recognition the tinfoil hat people get for being right all along?
      • I don't think he was delegating them to the tinfoil hat crowd, he was just remarking at how many people are attempting to "foil" the feds.

      • Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garbletext (669861) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:52PM (#21456719)
        Tinfoil hats are for conspiracy theorists. When your fears of an abusive government prove to be true, you're a liberal.

        • Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)

          by anagama (611277) <thepotter@yahoo.cPOLLOCKom minus painter> on Friday November 23 2007, @05:25PM (#21457541) Homepage

          When your fears of an abusive government prove to be true, you're a liberal.

          Or a conservative constitutional scholar.
          http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/ [americanfr...agenda.org]
          • I support their ideas, but

            conservative
            I'm not a fan of killing puppies. Why spawn an organization to reconstruct the right, when it's clearly too far gone. Desire for change is a leftist attribute. Substantially changing American conservatism isn't conservative.
            • The issue seems to be that current "American Conservatism" is neither. True conservatives and true liberals have cause for concern with both the neo-con and neo-liberal positions as neither advocates personal liberty or responsibility.
              • Here is a question about those beggars, how many of them are conservative? And why do you think that might be?

                There is no right or wrong answer. I'm curious to what people really think when presented with an opinion like this.
  • Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets? It's alarming that so many people are so docile.

    • It's alarming that so many people are so docile.
      What did you do about it today?
    • Not happening. Joe Apathetic is more worried about his dumb ass ring tones.
    • Probably when they get too impatient to grab ALL the power that's left in one shot like Musharraf did in Pakistan.

      The Corps and the rich folks behind them are trying to sneak control and $ away from the people gradually so that Joe Apathetic doesn't see anything wrong until it's too late. When they'll be done, the US will look like the Alphaverse in Charlie_Jade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Jade)

      I doubt it will happen because Greedy people can only hold back for so long...

    • When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets?
      It'll probably be when the most important parts of running a country are seriously neglected, when people are no longer comfortable and happy. When people feel that the mountainous benefits of living in the US aren't enough. Then they'll take to the streets, and by god, there will be an election like none other for hundreds of years.
    • Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets? It's alarming that so many people are so docile.

      When the actions of the government affect the TV viewing and high fructose corn syrup eating of the American public. Until then? Everyone will continue to sit on their asses smiling that they did "great work" at their pointless jobs and consider themselves

    • Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets?

      I'll tell you the answer, but you won't like it.

      The reason people are apathetic about these things is because it doesn't affect normal citizens to any great extent. There will ALWAYS be government abuses -- that's just the nature of power. The question is whether there are widespread enough abuses to

  • Another Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhenn (647989) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:28PM (#21456477)
    Another reason I prefer not to own a cell phone. Modern ones all have at least rudimentary location tracking built in. With the way the US Govt. abuses powers it shouldn't have, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they will try to exploit it so they can track people "in need of public safety"... because we all know how the average American (and yes, I'm an American citizen, so I'm bashing my own country, not yours) will roll over and play dead anytime the Govt. pulls out the safety card. It's pathetic.

    • Re:Another Reason (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:52PM (#21456729)

      Another reason I prefer not to own a cell phone. Modern ones all have at least rudimentary location tracking built in.
      On my phone (a Motorola Razr V3 serviced by Verizon), tracking can be turned on or off. For me, I leave it on so that when I'm out and about on country roads and Forest Service roads, which I am a lot, they can find me when I call 911.

      But I wonder, can "they" track me even when I turn the "feature" off? Maybe "they" see through the little camera on the phone? Can "they" hear waht I'm saying even when the phone is "closed"?

      Anyway, I'm off to the store to buy more aluminum foil (with cash in coin form, of course)...

      • Even if you have it off, 911 has permission to override it to get your location. With systems in place that allow them to bypass your lock, it wouldn't be a shock at all if "law enforcement" (I use that term loosely) and the Govt. will try to use this bypass feature to their advantage, even if it tramples on your rights or is of questionable legal status.

        Even on older phones without GPS features, they still have an idea where you are by which cell tower your phone is connected to. sure, its not as accu

        • Even if you have it off, 911 has permission to override it to get your location.
          The "feature" is spacifically tied to 911, in other workds the manual spacifically says if you want 911 tracking you *must* turn it on. Are you saying that when I turn it off, Verizon is out and out LIEING to me?

          Sometimes paranoia == talking out of one's ass.

          • Re:Another Reason (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ewhenn (647989) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:51PM (#21457213)
            Yes, they can ignore your preferances. I'm not saying they do it to everyone just to mess with them, but the technology allows for it.

            http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html [abcnews.com]

            ......Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet..... The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by "roving bugs" on the phones of John Ardito....Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.....
          • Verizon is lying to you and they get an immunity from prosecution for it,

            Grow up kid. This is not your 1960s USA.
            This is 2007. What the companies and government say is false.

      • Re:Another Reason (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rueger (210566) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:14PM (#21456925) Homepage
        But I wonder, can "they" track me even when I turn the "feature" off? Maybe "they" see through the little camera on the phone? Can "they" hear waht I'm saying even when the phone is "closed"?

        Yes. From 2006. [abcnews.com]

        Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off. A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery. "The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.
          • Here's an idea: Can we extend this to all government employees, too? And put the transcriptions online? It would be the ultimate democratic tool for feedback from the government to the citizens.

            Ooooh! Try this: since all calls "may be monitored for quality," how about a random process that connects random government employee's phones to a 900 number that anyone can call? $1.99 a minute, and maybe you get to listen in on an IRS auditor, or a petty drone, or maybe, just maybe, your own Senator or Congre

  • About time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VonSkippy (892467) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:45PM (#21456665) Homepage
    Good. It's about time they weed out the criminally stupid.

    What moron doesn't know they can buy a throw away cell from Walmarts for cash?

    If you're dumb enough to be a crook AND use a traceable (i.e. contracted) cell phone you deserve what you get.

      • My phone has no GPS [epinions.com]. Three or four years ago, Qwest wrote me saying they were "upgrading" their network and my phone wouldn't work anymore. They sent me a free replacement -- was worthless because I used my phone in a semi-remote area in which the internal antenna was not beefy enough. I looked around for a good phone with an external antenna port -- brick shape because I'm hard on phones -- but found nothing. I then went to the Qwest kiosk and asked them to make my phone work (it was supposed to be tri

  • somebody log in and repeat this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2007, @03:49PM (#21456697)
    I *just* heard a news story about this a day or so ago- take it seriously!
    A car was stolen by three guys, and the guys rammed a police car during the chase.
    The police opened fire on the vehicle, killing the driver. They also wounded one of two other guys in the car who bailed and ran off into the night.

    Here's the part that made me take notice: The news guy said that by using the cellphone number of the driver, they located and captured the other two guys within 20 minutes... by using location tracking of the fugitive's cellphones.

    Considering that a) the driver was dead and b) they didn't know who the other two guys were when they bailed out of the car and took off, 20 minutes seemed awfully fast. But how can you track down a cell phone's location without knowing the number or who the owner is?

    This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking both caller history (to find out who you called, or called you) AND those people's current locations. I knew things like this were in place for DHS and the FBI (a lot of bank robbers get caught because they have cell phones on them or in their cars), but that local LE had access to this stuff was a surprise.

    That means that you and I, joe geek guy, are already in this thing.
    Pretty cool, huh? It's *way* too late for tinfoil.

  • what I really wish... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spacefem (443435) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:05PM (#21456869) Homepage
    I feel like privacy issues are incredibly important... and that I'm the only one who feels this way. Well, me and my friends who read slashdot. And the four libertarians I know.

    The government only does this stuff because they feel like they can get away with it, that's what kills me.

    • The government only does this stuff because they feel like they can get away with it, that's what kills me.


      Seems like they can.

  • Hey, im bored today lets track down soandso and see where that hot girl is today.
  • I could think of this possibility.

    1. Cellphones can be tracked very accurately.
    2. Government can tap the records at will.
    3. Bank robbery happens at 4th and main.
    4. Police notify FBI.
    5. FBI calls the cell carriers and says "we need all active numbers in grid 34,53 at 12:03 pm when a robbery occurred" List please.
    6. FBI asks for the above mentioned numbers, "Which moved away from grid 34,53 at 12:05 at where are they now" List Please.
    7. FBI asks what was the duration of movement, and speed of numbers in list

    • Inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:30PM (#21456495) Homepage
      I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability. If anything, history should show us that when groups of people are granted powers over other groups, they tend to abuse them (see the "Stanford Prison Experiment" for psychological evidence). Thus, any monitoring, surveillance, or other oppressive capabilities, are likely to be realized. As technology removes the barriers to total surveillance, in terms of both the monitoring itself, as well as information processing, I do not see any option rather than for a total surveillance society to emerge.

      Call me paranoid, but I still think that the above is a rational assessment given historical evidence.

      • I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability.
        Yes, it is unfortunate (probably not inevitable though). What doesn't help is that for every person saying "New surveillance tech will bring down our society", there are two more saying "New surveillance tech? Why haven't we implemented it yet?"
      • The alternative is a panoptic society where everybody has equal access to the surveillance infrastructure. Well, either that or going off to live in a cave. I'm not a huge fan of any of these options.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by User 956 (568564)
          If humanities had the same weight as science, perhaps no.

          Humanities doesn't have the same weight as science because they haven't found a way to kill people with it yet. Yet. [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nametaken (610866)
      I'm normally the first to whine, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that Judges are required. Isn't that how we want surveillance to work?
      • A rubber-stamp judge slows things down for no useful purpose. You might as well just let the FBI write their own warrants.

        A real judge that does his job will slow things down to make sure only people who really should be under surveillance are put under surveillance.

    • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      But your physical location, your comings and goings, that's not a "person" or a "thing" to be "seized", so no worries, right? And the fact that the government asked for this info

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m2943 (1140797)
      And you seriously think this is different anywhere else? Western European nations, for example, were routinely tapping phone conversations of their own citizens behind the iron curtain, without probable cause or any other justification and nobody even raised much of an eyebrow about it. In the US, people at least make a fuss about it.
      • Hey now, don't raise a voice of reason just yet. It is too early in the thread. If you point something insightful like this out, you might deny someone the chance for a mindless rant and bashing session. They might explode!

        Do you want to be know as the guy who made someone explode? Somebody do humanity a favor and mod this down for another ten minute or so.

        If you didn't get the tongue in cheek there, Good point.

    • Finally, the REAL reason why just about every phone nowadays comes with a built-in GPS receiver...... so the phone can tell the carrier-- and thus the government-- where it is.......

      This doesn't require GPS to the best of my (limited) knowledge.

      The cell phone needs to be in contact with a tower in order to have a signal. For billing purposes, they need to know who you are.

      I think this works far more through radio triangulation than GPS. GPS, however, probably makes it easier. Of course, it makes one wond

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by bn0p (656911)
        You are correct. GPS only makes it easier and more accurate to locate a phone. The location services provided by phones and carriers are *intended* for consumer applications (e.g., all those GPS applications your wireless company is willing to sell you) and emergency/911 calls.

        At least for the commercial applications, the software is designed to require a response from the phone saying in effect "Yes, you can determine my location at this time". The software will then use the GPS in the phone (if it i
          • Damn them! How dare they have a phone turned on during a concert! By god and all that is right those signals should have been jammed! I don't care if she has a terminal illness... nobody should be able to interrupt my enjoyment of the Teletubbies Christmas Jam! /sarcasm

            Uh... you realize nearly all phones have both a silent and a vibrate mode.

            Moreover, that the ability to locate them like this would be *needed* at all suggests that the phone was at least either silent or off. (Otherwise, they would have just
            • **** whoosh **** [slashdot.org]

              That was the reference flying right over your head, just above hairline level.

              A few weeks ago, /. had a front-page story called Cell Phone Jamming on the Rise [slashdot.org], talking about how establishments are jamming cell phone frequencies so their customers can have an evening in peace without some idiot yapping away on his cell phone. The sarcasm above was a parody of many of the comments.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arivanov (12034)
        It does not on GSM (dunno about American specific tech).

        GSM needs to keep track of phone locations very precisely because the primary means of synchronising the phone to the network is by altering the timing advance which tells the phone when to start transmitting.

        3G is nowhere near to GSM in terms of location precision. In uses reflected signals in a positive feedback filter to improve the phone signal to noise ratio. If you look at the data before the filter you cannot make sense of it (it is combined wit

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by memojuez (910304)
      ...and this was done under the guise of "So 911 can find you!"

    •   Finally, the REAL reason why just about every phone nowadays comes with a built-in GPS receiver...... so the phone can tell the carrier-- and thus the government-- where it is.......

      My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?

      • My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?

        The feature to turn of GPS is likely working. Its reasonably improbable that they'd be able to remotely stealth turn it on.

        However, cellphones talk to multiple towers simultaneously. Carriers can a locate a phone relatively accurately even without GPS. Additionally cellphones regularly communicate with the towers to let the network know where it is, so tha

    • Re:Listen up (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wordsnyc (956034) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:40PM (#21456615) Homepage
      There is an element of truth to this. The practical effect of this is to spread fear and apprehension among "innocent nobodies" who happen to be paying attention. The myth of government omniscience (and, by extension, omnipotence) is a powerful tool of preemptive social control.

      It's like torture. Newsflash: the people who torture know it doesn't really "work" on (i.e., produce valuable information from) the victims. It's a form of state terrorism -- it works best on the rest of us.

    • Re:Listen up (Score:5, Funny)

      by garbletext (669861) on Friday November 23 2007, @03:58PM (#21456777)
      As a radical drug-dealing terrorist pedophile, I have to disagree.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.