Feds Have Access To Cellphone Tracking On Request

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.'"

This just in

[pwnies (1034518)]

...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

[neomunk (913773)]

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?

Re:This just in

[garbletext (669861)]

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

[anagama (611277)]

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]

Can we just have a revolution and get it over with

[MadHatter2005 (886375)]

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.

Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's alarming that so many people are so docile.

What did you do about it today?

Re:Can we just have an election and get it over wi

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

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.

Another Reason

[ewhenn (647989)]

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

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

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)...

Re:Another Reason

[rueger (210566)]

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.

Re:Another Reason

[ewhenn (647989)]

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.....

About time

[VonSkippy (892467)]

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.

somebody log in and repeat this

[by Anonymous Coward]

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...

[spacefem (443435)]

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.

Inevitable

[TheMeuge (645043)]

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.

Re:

[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:

[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?

Judges should demand a modicum of evidence

[davidwr (791652)]

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.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

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:

[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.

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

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.

Re:

[memojuez (910304)]

...and this was done under the guise of "So 911 can find you!"

Re:

[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:Listen up

[wordsnyc (956034)]

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

[garbletext (669861)]

As a radical drug-dealing terrorist pedophile, I have to disagree.