Cops' Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Now Better Than GPS 147
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss a proposed bill to limit location tracking of electronic devices without a warrant — what it's calling the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, or the GPS Act. Ahead of that hearing, University of Pennsylvania computer science professor Matt Blaze submitted written testimony (PDF) telling Congress that phone carriers, as well as the law enforcement agencies with which they share data, can now use phones' proximity to cell towers and other sources of cellular data to track their location as precisely or even more precisely than they can with global positioning satellites. Thanks to the growing density of cell towers and the proliferation of devices like picocells and femtocells that transmit cell signals indoors, even GPS-less phones can be tracked with a high degree of precision and can offer data that GPS can't, like the location of someone inside a building or what floor they're on. With the GPS Act, Congress is considering expanding the ban on warrantless tracking of cars with GPS devices that the Supreme Court decided on in January. Blaze's testimony suggests they need to include non-GPS tracking of cell phones in that ban, a measure law enforcement agencies are strongly resisting."
Re:Not always more accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
The cell tower nearest my home is about 2 miles by crow, but 15 miles by car, on the other side of the reservoir. GPS is much more accurate.
Don't they use your distance from multiple cell towers to triangulate your position?
This just isn't right... in any way (Score:5, Insightful)
4th amendment. no new law required (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Every time we pass a new law we water down the constitution.
"papers" - is not strictly paper. it is where their data is stored.
"effects" - whatever they have
"houses" - where they store themselves and their stuff.
"persons" - they themselves
what more is needed?
You CAN turn off your phone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:5, Insightful)
Well instead of bitching here on Slashdot, try writing (pen and paper, not email) your representative in congress and insisting they pass the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, with no watered down provisions.
Is it really so hard to get a warrant? If you can't convince a judge, why should a email to your cell provider suffice?
wrongly formulated (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the bill should simply state that a warrant is required when someones location is actively monitored within a certain precision for a certain time period.
Same with laws around cookies, which is a topic among lawmakers in some countries. Instead targeting cookies, these laws should address the fact that a user is uniquely identified across sessions and/or websites. Cookies are just one way to achieve this, but there are others which do not even require cookies, such IP number in combination with all sorts of data such as browser agent, os, screen resolution etc. etc. that makes any user pretty much unique even without cookies.
Re:You CAN turn off your phone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no privacy. That's the price of modern convenience. Some of us warned folks 10+ years ago this day was coming. Most largely ignored it because of "Ooh, shiny" or "convenience".
Genie's out of the bottle. Good luck getting it back in.
Re:4th amendment. no new law required (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same rules for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. The police should be more constrained in their actions than the average citizen. Unfortunately we've allowed things to get turned on their heads.
Re:Privacy or surveillance... (Score:5, Insightful)
With respect, bullshit
What you meant was, "Privacy or Mass Surveillance.... You can't have both".
Privacy in the long run will always benefit the People more than governments use of mass surveillance to allegedly provide the People with more security. The common mistake is treating the government like a regular person and evaluating their possession of information as having the same possible consequences which completely ignores the massive differences in power between both actors.
Simple surveillance, under Due Process, is not affected by creating laws to protect Privacy, or laws that ban the use of mass surveillance on people.
Law enforcement and governments will always have enough resources and technology to intercept communications and watch a single person. It is the traditional stake out, using listening devices, gathering information the old fashioned way, etc. They might not be able to do this to millions of people at one time, but that is the point. It is dangerous to allow them to do that.
Convince me that more than 10% of the population is currently engaged in conspiracies to commit heinous and violent acts against other citizens (forget that bullshit about the War on Drugs) and it *might* be a point for discussion.
The greatest danger we face is the government . That's not paranoia either, but simple observation of the facts and history.
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any phrase more overused and insulting, when brought up in a discussion about rights? Maybe "think of the children"?
Re:Incorrect (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the justices in the GPS case mostly objected to the fact that a physical device was attached to the suspects vehicle. If the tracking was entirely unintrusive as with tracking a cell phone it may have had a different outcome.
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:4, Insightful)
Riddle me this then: How is it that restrictions on fine print of financial agreements between lenders and average borrowers, which garner the support of 90% of Americans in polls, aren't actually in place? How is it that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed by roughly 65% of Americans for years, are still going on? How is it that even though people across the political spectrum from Tea Partiers to Occupiers are demanding that big banks be investigated for what appears to be fraud fraud worth trillions of dollars, no such investigation is taking place?
I can guess at who's demands the government is actually satisfying, but it's definitely not the general public's.
Re:Not always more accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
do you really think law enforcement would ever be expected to wait to get a warrant before rescuing a kidnap victim?
Only if they want to convict the kidnapper. Using warrants and following the law are sort of important when it comes to convicting someone of a crime.
Re:This just isn't right... in any way (Score:4, Insightful)
I can stop using Facebook or Google without uprooting my life. I can't stop using the United States of America without uprooting my life.
I choose what I give over to Facebook or Google. The government is choosing what it takes from me.
Facebook and Google are only beholden to me insomuch as I fund their operations. The government is beholden to me by the mere fact that I am a citizen and they should be implementing things for my best interest.
Facebook and Google are interested in connecting someone with a product with someone who could make use of that product. The government is interested in many things including harassing people that don't agree with it.
If Facebook or Google wrongs me I can sue them in open court and, if the wrong is great enough, I can have others join my suit. The government can, without input, shut down my suit before anyone sees it through a variety of means.
Anyone else want to add a few more distinctions?