Police Don't Need a Warrant To Track Your Disposable Cellphone 312
New submitter Blindman writes "The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is okay for police to track your cellphone signal without a warrant. Using information about the cell tower that a prepaid cell phone was connected to, the police were able to track a suspected drug smuggler. Apparently, keeping your cellphone on is authorization for the police to know where you are. According to the ruling (PDF), '[The defendant] did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location.' Also, 'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'"
Must have been small time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
The first?
Look at it this way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the point (Score:5, Insightful)
"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location."
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, I mean you are literally broadcasting who, where and what you are saying, all one need do is listen.
Talk about a non-story. It's not a real scandal like Obama eating dog or anything.
So, where are the publicly available devices capable of tracking this signal. I'm waiting for it, because I have a few senators, congressmen, and judges I think should be tracked 24/7. After all, they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy, do they? And therefore they should be able to be tracked using the cell phone, right? Note: this isn't entirely a joke, I honestly think people should find a way to track lawmakers and judges if this decision doesn't get overturned. Obviously, the decision should be overturned, but if not, that would be a good way to insure a law protecting such information is enacted.
Of course people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. It isn't publicly available, and in fact the police had to request it from the cell phone company. Just because you can track someone using it quite easily does not mean they do not have an expectation of privacy.
Reality... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get this persistent desire of people to ignore reality. If something can be done, it will be. Should it be? Possibly not, but again you are ignoring the REALITY.
Can someone track your cell phone when it is on? Yes. Therefore it will be done. If that bothers you, turn it off if you are going somewhere you do not want to be found, or burn phones more often...
Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Moronic troll.
Re:Why does "reasonable expectation" matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd better be, because if not, then there is no real privacy for anyone ever.
The legal system doesn't know that he was doing anything illegal until after he's convicted of it. Up until then, he's presumed innocent, but accused of doing something illegal. It may seem like a fine distinction, but it's a critically important one.
To say that someone doesn't get their privacy rights because they're breaking the law is to say that cops get to decide someone's guilt or innocence -- which they don't get to do. Judges get to do that in a court of law. Under existing law, a judge can make this sort of determination during the investigatory phase: it's called "issuing a warrant".
From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis mine; let's apply that "logic" to other "voluntary" purchases, and see if it passes the smell test...
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought house
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought automobile
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voluntary use of a voluntarily bought pair of pants
Yup, smells like bullshit to me.
Re:So it ends (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because I shouldn't have to turn off my right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and/or property.
Re:So it ends (Score:5, Insightful)
Worst part is, I can already see how the government might address the issue ... Cell phone (and other hardware) manufacturers will be required to include a sticker on the packaging, or maybe just a footnote in the instruction manual that states : "This device complies with FCC regulation 42.x and emits location tracking data that can be collected and used by law enforcement. Ownership of this device implies acceptance of government tracking and anal probing in compliance with .... " etc etc etc
In fact, it might already be there. I sure as hell haven't read all my fine print.
Hmmm... it'll probably get overturned (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision seems incompatible with the GPS tracking decision, which said a warrant was required for GPS tracking. IIRC, the GPS decision didn't key off the fact that the cops had to plant a transmitter, they based the decision off the idea that it was really creepy. This seems to be an identical level of creepiness.
Re:What is the point roxy (Score:5, Insightful)
Police cars are usually broadcasting radio signals as well. Is it OK if I create an app that shows the real-time position of any police vehicles that are identified? Should be. Fairly easy to overlay on a google map. It is no different than seeing one drive down the street and then telling someone. We could make a web version that serves from another country to protect it from a take down. I'm gonna put this up over on kickstarter.
Re:So it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
stallman is crazy, in some ways; but he was RIGHT that we are carrying 'involuntary tracking devices'. and we even PAY for them, out of our own pockets!
its not really 'tinfoil', anymore, to want to remove your battery when the phone is not in use. (not sure what apple fans to, but normal phones can at least have their battery taken out easily and on-demand).
Two big differences (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The phone wasn't broadcasting data that the police happened to notice. They had the phone company send the phone commands querying it for it's precise precision (this is a feature that is required by law to be in phones for the purpose of e911). So this was an active search, not a happenstance observation.
2) Because this isn't a signal that just anyone can monitor, but rather one that requires explicit cooperation of the phone company to generate and access, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that signal.
Those two facts essentially are the definition of when a search that requires a warrant.
Re:So it ends (Score:3, Insightful)
If I walk down a street, anyone within a block or two can see me, and we all agree there was no right to privacy... after all I went out in public.
But you put a transmitter in your pocket that broadcasts your location to everyone within 45 miles.. and suddenly you're shocked other people know where you are?
You've got to be kidding me.
It's your phone. It's your transmitter.
STOP transmitting your location to the whole city if you don't want people to know where you are.
Re:So it ends (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So it ends (Score:5, Insightful)
Use of radio (or other shared infrastructure) is not equivalent to broadcasting. Cell phone communications are, by law, only allowed between the service provider tower and the subscriber handset and a nontrivial effort is taken to secure that unicast communication against eavesdropping.
Re:So it ends (Score:5, Insightful)
It does NOT broadcast your location to everyone within 45 miles. GSM, for example, encrypts the signal [hackcanada.com]. Details about whom the signal belongs to and what it contains are between the subscriber and the service.
What this ruling is about isn't "other people", it is the State conducting a surreptitious search without a warrant. The nature of the radio transmission and the encryption give me a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re:So it ends (Score:5, Insightful)
"Also, 'if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.'"
This ruling pre-supposes that contraband is being transported. In fact there is no way to know that for sure until AFTER an arrest. So this is a completely specious argument.
It would be like him ruling that police can look in the trunk of your car anytime they want, because you "might be" transporting drugs or something. It's a completely bogus argument.
Re:So it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the EM waves you are emitting are visible or not makes no difference.
Yes it does. What if a device is invented that can detect the minute changes in gravity that occur when an object moves about. Lets assume that by using this device the police could reconstruct a 3d rendering of an entire city include all the people in it and what they are doing. Does that sound like a good idea?
Whether your cellphone signal can be tracked without a warrant is not a technical issue. It's a philosophical, moral, societal, political and legal question.
Re:So it ends (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, I'm in favor of requiring the warrant for this. I'm saying the argument that privacy is necessary because there is currently danger in the release of SSN, CC#, and so on is security through obscurity. That's not a good argument for needing to retain privacy.
Re:So it ends (Score:2, Insightful)
...or maybe you could accept the fact that you really aren't interesting enough to track.