4th Circuit Holds That Obtaining Extended Cell-Site Records Requires a Warrant 37
schwit1 writes: In the new opinion, the Fourth Circuit (Judge Davis joined by Judge Thacker, with Judge Motz dissenting) holds that ordering a cell provider to hand over "extended" records is a Fourth Amendment search because "society recognizes an individual's privacy interest in her movements over an extended time period." The Fourth Circuit relies primarily on the "mosaic theory" arguments of the D.C. Circuit's opinion in United States v. Maynard and the concurring opinions when that case reached the Supreme Court under the name of United States v. Jones.
you want a warrant? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
is the 4th Circuit forgetting the Sunset Clause? (Score:3)
Searches under PATRIOT don't require a warrant - until the end of December.
All a Fed has to do is whisper "suspected terrorist" into the air and he can then hold you in a six by eight room with two chairs and one small table with a steel bar across one side, with no warrant or charge, until you grow old and die.
Re: (Score:2)
NO THEY DO NOT [wikipedia.org].
Where foreign intelligence gathering is concerned, the target is not afforded Constitutional protection. Period. He is in time of war, suspected hence assumed guilty until proven innocent (remember this is a time of war, are you going to issue a suspected spy with a loaded firearm and a counterfeit passport?) of espionage.
Cell site records shouldn't be allowed at all. (Score:3)
As the now-famous case of Adnan Syed has taught us, cell site records are pointless in criminal cases because they're unreliable as a means of determining where someone is apart from a very basic (ie; telling what state or city a person is in) level. The towers a phone's signal goes through are never the same twice - even someone repeating a call in the same location a mere second later would be routed differently. Syed's case shows just how badly the police abuse this: they used cell data taken months after the fact to build a story that didn't make sense and contradicted other evidence in the case. Despite what the police think, cell site data is not GPS and is not a reliable means of locating a person. Using cell site data this way is junk science on the level of the polygraph test.
The real answer is to keep cell site data out of court entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
CSD is very accurate. I've sat in on a case where it was used to retrace a person's precise movements to the second and to within three metres, using data that was six months old. It resulted in a conviction for arson reckless and attempted multiple murder.
(R v Stafford [nottinghampost.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that information is probably proprietery, all I can tell you is what I saw in a courtroom mounted on an easel: a map showing a tickmarked path with timestamps every few ticks and three marks which apparently indicated the location of the handset when calls were either initiated or answered. When asked by the judge where the trace came from, the prosecutor stated that it came from cell site data, connected to the accused's mobile phone.
Re: (Score:2)
all I can tell you is what I saw in a courtroom mounted on an easel: a map showing a tickmarked path with timestamps every few ticks
So we should trust prosecutors when they say CSD is accurate because a prosecutor told you that CSD is accurate?
Re: (Score:3)
You should trust prosecutors as much as you trust law enforcement isn't committing perjury by doing parallel construction: not at all. The truth and the law is entirely malleable.
Unfortunately, once a judge rules it admissible, the onus is on you to provide your own expert to refute the data. Which means if they really want to convict you, they can probably fabricate the data, and the rest is just truthiness.
Or, alternately, they might actually get a conviction by providing actual data and convicting a gu
Re: (Score:2)
the prosecutor is not a forensic expert. He says what he sees. If he is told that a CSD map is accurate he's paid good money for that, he must trust it before he presents it to a hall where his career, nay his own liberty, is on the line if he fucks it up and they put that on him. They're not paid ludicrous money because they look good in two thousand Dollar suits, they're paid ludicrous money because their public liability cover costs a fucking fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
http://archive.wired.com/polit... [wired.com]
"When an Italian prosecutor pulled the records of phones in the area at the time, the plot became apparent. He was able to identify the agents (by alias), where they had stayed, and even calls they made
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cell site records shouldn't be allowed at all. (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
6.56 to 9.00 in has the map reconstruction of a cell phone been active.
The "accuracy to 3m" just suggests a road used. Think of a cell log over time and a city map.
"Renditions Case" "October 28, 2009" http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
"Using special software, that had ironically been given to Megale's antiterror unit by the CIA, the police were able to create movement profiles for each mobile phone user."
"accuracy" was never a problem, only the sorting of the many calls in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
'...and electronic records that enabled Italian investigators to retrace their movements in detail."
"... who reported that by piecing together records of those phones' electronic signals they were able to trace the route of the van as it headed"
The idea is that movement and time fills in the map at that human or car level per city street.
A person of interest walks in a park
Re:Cell site records shouldn't be allowed at all. (Score:4, Informative)
Pure speculation: two towers can triangulate, three more so, combine with the fact that your phone likely has GPS, and that it needs to send a constant beacon, has things like accelerometers, altimeters, and other sensors ...
Oh, and don't forget the link the GP includes is for the UK, which means they could fill in the gaps with video surveillance.
My guess is it is possible to fairly accurately reconstruct your movements by combining all of these things.
None of this stuff is designed to be kept secret from the cell company, and the EULA of all those shiny apps says they can access it, and probably are doing so constantly and reporting it somewhere.
The technology we find so convenient is quite readily used against us. Both because it tells everything about what you do, and is readily obtained by law enforcement, even if they ignore the laws to do it. Because they can always use those Stingray things.
Nobody should be the least bit surprised. Welcome to the creepy distopian future.
There's a chance the GP is bragging and pulling your leg. But I have no reason to disbelieve that modern surveillance can do all he claims ... we've helped build the infrastructure required for this by not being able to live without smartphones.
If you're thinking this is all implausible, then I'm afraid you've really not been paying attention to what's happening lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Pure speculation: two towers can triangulate, three more so,
There is no need whatsoever for more than two towers because cell sites use sectored antennas. They know what side of the towers you're on. They can localize your position to a pretty narrow arc (just a few meters wide) with juse one tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Triangulation and the fact that cell towers have multiple directional aerials.
Awesome! (Some restrictions may apply) (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That depends, Judges are supposed to review the warrant for lawfulness and necessity. In places/cases where the police are doing their job correctly it is just a review to make sure they are following the proper procedures and applicable laws. In places/cases where the police/prosecutor are overstepping their authority or abusing their position and can't justify the need for the warrant the Judge is most definitely are supposed to reject the warrant. Sadly for quite some time most Judges would sign off o
Mosaic theory (Score:2)
The mosaic theory wikipedia page (on the intelligence strategy) from the summary is not even REMOTELY close to the Fourth Amendment mosaic theory from the article, that the opinion relies on: http://repository.law.umich.ed... [umich.edu]
So whoever made that mistake should also know the Fourth Circuit is talking about the paper, not the D&D stat.