Sprint Revealed Customer GPS Data 8 Million Times 315
An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' GPS location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended, at which Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel, said: "[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in." Soghoian's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data — one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004 — and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance.
automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Who watches the Watchers?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The tinfoil hat jokes are on us. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish. Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?
The funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts". How many examples like this do we need before people are less quick to dismiss what they should be examining as a real possibility?
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:1, Insightful)
whether you are complying with the unconstitutional mandate to carry health insurance.
Fixed that for you.
It sure is "Orwellian"
Doesn't that depend on how they are counting requests? If a 'request' is nothing more than a hit on their webpage then 8,000,000 might not be out of line. Imagine how often you would need to refresh such a tool in the process of tracking a particular suspect.
If 8,000,000 refers to the number of customers that law enforcement requested data on then that's another matter altogether.....
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the mandate to carry health insurance.
It sure is "Orwellian" and it is true [csmonitor.com]... Republicans may have skirted some laws (although no more than Democrat Roosevelt did, when arresting thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, or Italian origin) in their "war on terror", but to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office...
Or it needs to have one party, the Statist Party. This party has two factions; one is called the Democrats while the other is called the Republicans. Their value to the Statist Party is derived from maximizing small, petty differences and minimizing fundamental similarities. I'll explain one such similarity.
Traditionally, the Democrats/Leftists prefer personal freedoms at the expense of economic freedoms, while tradtionally the Republicans/Rightists prefer economic freedoms at the expense of personal freedoms. This is the case even though a freedom, once restricted, is never made unrestricted again. So the parties take turns being in power, and while there they implement their particular brand of restrictions. When the other party reacquires power, they further implement their brand of restrictions without lifting those enacted by the party that was previously in power. This guarantees that over time, you end up with less freedom and eventually end up with a total police state. This is only one technique in use. The notion that over generations of time, no one in those parties would have noticed this and decided to change it is absurd. Therefore there can be nothing accidental about it.
The important thing about this system is that it appears to provide choice to the electorate. The electorate must remain convinced that their votes matter and might really change the system, or else they lose all incentive to participate in the system and accept it as valid. This is necessary because the British have already tried to control this region by brute force and overt authority and were not successful; therefore something more deceptive is needed.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember who signed that into law the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.
And remember who controlled both the House and the Senate when that law was passed by both houses the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Republicans are actually better than Democrats.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?
2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.
3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.
4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act. Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.
[citation needed]
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.
If I exceed the speed limit by 10 mph and a traffic cop notices, at that moment someone in the government has chosen to give a fuck about what I am doing. Therefore, it doesn't take much to meet this definition you have given, and that's assuming an honest cop and honest state legislators. I don't even want to know what kind of extralegal problems dishonest cops and corrupt officials could cause with impunity.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
The monstrosity has to be stopped now (make that a "Now!!!" — with the Illiberal-beloved raised fist). Don't wait for it to be struck by Supreme Court, for it may never happen... Roosevelt — the earlier opponent of "letting a good crisis go to waste" — had to fight Supreme Court for his "New Deal", and prevailed...
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Those people deserve to go to jail. The income tax is [wikipedia.org] constitutional. If Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing a health insurance mandate and 3/4 of the states ratify it then I'll shut up about how it's unconstitutional. If they pass it without doing that then it deserves to be struck down as the freedom infringing power grab that it really is.
Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene (Score:5, Insightful)
You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?
That's cute, quaint, and outdated. It used to be that the state had limited resources and therefore, of economic necessity, it could only focus its manpower and its surveillance capability on what it considered to be the most dangerous/influential dissidents. That has been the case, historically.
Technologies like automated GPS and massive databases have changed the game. The more technology advances, the cheaper it becomes to surveil more and more people. A state that would have had to focus its efforts on the 50 most dangerous dissidents 100 years ago can now use those same resources to monitor hundreds or thousands. Over time, that becomes more and more the case. You now have modern governments with plenty of manpower, nearly unlimited funding (thanks to deficit spending), and high technology which can efficiently keep tabs on millions of people at once. The more this is the case, the less unusual you have to be to stand out from the crowd and attract unwanted attention and scrutiny. We are quickly heading towards a future where even expressing a slightly unpopular political opinion can get you noticed whether or not you are informed of this fact.
Think of all the people who have committed no crimes, have not even been accused of a crime, yet end up on the "no-fly" list for no apparent reason and are not allowed to find out why. Right here in America, the "land of the free." Then consider that this list is special because its existence is publically acknowledged and its use appears to be relatively limited.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.
Freedom of association is protected by the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of my papers and effects. The 10th amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to Congress to the states or the people. I'd say that's enough reference for anybody.
3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.
Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.
4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.
Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
...sure, unless you're broke.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?
No, actually I was refuting your attempt at painting the passage of the act as if it was the fault of the Democrats and the Republicans were totally clear and innocent. The Republicans supported it 100% in the House and by a 96.2% margin in the Senate. The only reason it made it to the desk of Clinton to begin with was through their support of the act.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:1, Insightful)
1. (shrug). Somebody brought it up as relating to GPS. Go read the great-grandparent post.
2. The Bible is a fictional document. The Constitution is the LAW which reigns supreme over all areas of the United States, even the president, congress, and supreme court. It is worthwhile to know what the LAW says, else we might as well be a law-less society. Unless you're suggesting we ignore the law? I'm sorry but I will not. The Constitution is the law and I have sworn an oath as a government official to obey it.
3. That was my point. The power belongs to fine people for not having health insurance belongs to the States, not the central government or the Congress. I'm glad we agree on this point.
4. No. I will not leave this country. The Founding document of this nation reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
.
My family has been here since the 1700s. It is not we that must leave, or change. It is the government that must change, because it is becoming a pre-1990 eastern-european-style tyranny. It has effectively revived the nobility system (with the politicians as the new nobility), and turned all the rest of us into serfs to be ordered around like puppets (buy health insurance or be heavily fined). It is the government that has betrayed the founding principles of this nation, and broken the Supreme Law of the land in direct violation of the oath to uphold that law. I will not leave. I will stay.
Freedom to work and enjoy the fruits of my labor, without somebody coming along and taking almost $35,000 of it every fucking year..... freedom to be clear of debt and not have to fear for my children's or my grandchildren's future that the country might go bankrupt..... freedom to speak my mind without being called a "racist" or "terrorist" just because I disagree with the Obamas or the Bushes..... that Freedom is a cause worth dying for.
What do YOU have that is worth dying for? Anything? Anything at all?
I suspect nothing.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
This just goes to show that the purpose of the two party system it to keep us bickering between each other. In reality, if only a handful on either side voted against it, then both sides are filled primarily with a bunch of freedom hating fuckwads.
Fines for contempt (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd think, the 1st Amendment ought to protect their speech, at least... Maybe, wasting the judge's time is contempt, but I am very-very-very worried about people getting fined for expressing their legal opinions — they didn't curse the judge or refuse to rise up. Simply ruling against them is one thing, fining them for even bringing the matter up is a "chilling message".
Re:Warrant required? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?
A warrant is only necessary if the government wants to take something by physical force or wants to search something that is considered private against the consent of the owner. If the cops knock on your door and ask to read your copy of TV Guide, they don't need a warrant if you voluntarily give it to them. Knowing and uncoerced consent (absent any other taint of illegality such as an illegal seizure) always negates the need for a warrant.
Moreover, as far as the law is concerned, absent a particular contractual obligation (i.e. an NDA), when you convey information to a third party you are also conveying the right for them to disseminate it. For instance, absent such an agreement, if you send me a threatening legal letter, it is perfectly legal for me to post it on the internet for all to mock. I could also just print it out and give it to the police. Letters in the mail, of course, enjoy considerable fourth amendment protection from the police but the fourth amendment does not prevent disclosure by the intended recipient.
Finally, I have a Sprint device with GPS and there is a very conspicuous warning the first time you enable the location feature that it is conveying that information to the network, with a big YES and NO button. So in total, the customer voluntarily conveys their location information to Sprint, who in turn, voluntarily conveyed it to law enforcement. No warrants are necessary because disclosure by the intended recipients is never a fourth amendment concern. Once you give somebody a piece of information, they can do with it as they please (copyright notwithstanding, but GPS coordinates are hardly a creative work) -- if you don't want them to disclose it, don't tell it to them in the first place.
Ultimately, the legal system presumes that we are all intelligent adults (perhaps that's wrong) that are capable of waiving our rights by voluntarily giving others private information. This might not be the best normative choices of policies, but it underlies the entire American notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" which almost always informs (if not decides) fourth amendment questions. The Courts have refused to sign on the notion that a Sprint customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily gives to Sprint -- the mere act of giving information to a third party (absent contractual obligations) evinces a lack of expectation of privacy in it.
Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an obvious example. You feel passionately about some cause so you go to some rally in a park somewhere. Mind you this rally is totally peaceful and people even cleanup after themselves!
However, unknown to you the "Feds" have setup a program that queries this database looking for anybody whose within the boundaries of the park and puts all the names into a big dossier.
It would be very easy to append that dossier to the do not fly list.
Suddenly you're turned away at the airport and when you go to investigate why (if you can even find out!) you're told "You attended a rally for 'X', we've deemed the people of X and those whose support X (it's a bad letter anyway...) to be a terrorist organization or an organization that supports terrorists."
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'm kind of embarrassed to be agreeing with you, when you use terms like "Illiberal". It's similar to how I dislike a significant portion of the people who argue that drugs should be legalized, even though I AGREE with them. I think you would be much more effective if you toned down the rhetoric some, and I honestly mean that in a helpful way.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:2, Insightful)
The electorate must remain convinced that their votes matter and might really change the system, or else they lose all incentive to participate in the system and accept it as valid.
It's never too late to raise the black flag of anarchy.
Re:8 million times? (Score:3, Insightful)
Errr - since the phone company gets paid every time they provide the data, I doubt they put any roadblocks in the process.
Re:Warrant required? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to agree to be monitored by the police to use a cel phone in the states? and you act like its no big deal!
You seem to think that they are talking only about GPS enabled phones, but what they are probably talking about is cel phone triangulation, more commonly called GPS-A. To me its pretty scary because the government should not be able to track you without a court ordered warrant! thats called freedom, and it prevents SEVERE abuses of power. Sounds like this info may be archived to a database too. Very chilling.
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, this tool is an illustration of what happens when the threshold for looking stuff up becomes sliding a mouse across a desk between mouthfuls of doughnut.
The issue is precisely that the threshold is low, and that it is used because the threshold is low, and now what "anyone in the government gives a flying fuck" is not "murdered four cops" but rather "looked cute in the DMV line last week."
If being tracked was not important, even on a silly, superficial level, why did you post anonymously? Hmmm?
Re:automated tool for locating cells? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad thing is that some still call me a paranoid conspiracy nut when I tell them that's the reason we had cash for clunkers. Note that they simply destroyed the vehicles they bought from us. If I were in the same position, I would have hired a few thousand laid-off autoworkers to part out the cars and digitize the inventory. I am certain that over the next 3 years the program would have paid for itself many times over! But no, we didn't do that, Instead they filled the motors with liquid glass, flattened them, and shipped them off to a Chinese landfill. Why? Funny thing is, every single vehicle they sold us in return all have GPS capable hardware as standard parts.
Kind of hard to run from the cops when they can just shut your motor down by remote control.
-Oz
Not true (Score:1, Insightful)
Cell towers are not omnidirectional. Well, the tower as a whole MIGHT be, but usually each tower is comprised of multiple sector antennas, usually 60 degrees wide each. 6 x 60 = 360. I guarantee you they can tell from which sector antenna your cell ping is coming from. They can locate you fairly well from one tower.