Privacy group wants law enforcement to get a warrant before getting location-tracking

[Shizuka]

Does technology gives us freedom or takes it off us?



Privacy group wants law enforcement to get a warrant before getting location-tracking informationBy Heather Forsgren Weaver
Feb 23, 2006
WASHINGTON—A privacy organization is calling for location-tracking information to be given to law enforcement only with a warrant indicating that there is probable cause that a crime has or is about to be committed.
“Traditionally, the law has made a distinction between the content of the call and the numbers dialed,” said Jim Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. “The location information is much more sensitive. It shows much more about your association, your activities—much more revealing about what the person is doing even when the phone is not making a call. We argue this should be available only under the probable-cause standard.”
continued below

CDT made its recommendations in a report released last week. The report details the evolution of government access to location tracking, but Dempsey noted, “You can search the case law and not find anywhere what the government standard is for location tracking.”
The government has been arguing that it does not need probable cause for location tracking; this seems to run counter to rules that were adopted implementing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Those rules said that law enforcement was entitled to pen-register information from a cell-phone conversation at the beginning and end of the call. This information would make it similar to a pen register in the wired world, which gives the date, time and number called. Because the location is fixed in the wired world, the location is known.
“The magistrates have had a revolt. Five of them in different areas of the country have ruled the government needs a probable-cause warrant. One has gone in the opposite direction. The Department of Justice has appealed none of them,” said Dempsey.
Technology advances have not made it more difficult for government to catch criminals and protect against terrorism, a frequent excuse being given for the recently disclosed National Security Agency domestic wiretap program, Dempsey contended. “Technology does make the government’s job more difficult, but on balance, the digital revolution has been a law enforcement boon. There is more information available. The government has been very adept at exploiting these technologies,” he said.
Location tracking is one area that has become easier. Where before a location beeper had to be surreptitiously put on a person or vehicle, today people carry cell phones with them everywhere.
“We are all wedded to the cell phone,” said Dempsey.
The NSA domestic-wiretap program was revealed by the New York Times as debate was hot on renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that strengthened law enforcement’s ability to collect and share intelligence information. CDT believes that while the debates over the Patriot Act and whether the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Security Act are important, it is the trends in technology that are most worrisome. “The technology trends far overshadow in their consequences,” said Dempsey.

[guy2]

They should always have to have a warrant.

[bobolito]

So what law enforcement should do is just get a permanent warrant for all US wireless subscribers. If they want a warrant, they can have it that way. They are acting like law enforcement always knows when a crime is about to be committed. Many times the need for tracking information arises during an emergency and there's just no time to be dealing with warrants. That's ridicuolous. If you didn't commit a crime, then you have nothing to hide. So I don't see how this technology is taking away any of our freedoms.

Law enforcement officials are not looking for an average Joe to see whether they are home or at work or in school. They don't waste time on stupid things. They are looking for real criminals who are out there that need to get caught.

[AnthroMatt]

Not sure how legal this would be, but it seems a better thing to do would be to not need a warrant initially, but then be forced to prove in court that the request for location tracking information had enough probable cause to be valid. If it determined law enforcement overstepped their bounds, then any evidence gained as a result of the illegal request for tracking info should be thrown out.

I agree with bobolito in that I have no need for concern, so on a personal level I don't care. On the other hand, if the government decided for some reason I was worthy of being tracked, I would think that tracking me without a warrant would bother me quite a bit. And let's face it, law enforcement is wrong sometimes.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I think that the tracking information should be available to the owner of the phone, and only to law enforcement with a warrant or owner's permission. As in the case discussed the other day where the phone was in a stolen car with an infant and the owner requested tracking and was denied by the carrier. As the owner of the phone was requesting the info there should have been no need for a warrant to get the information from the carrier. Especially since the life of a child was in danger.


-Jay

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue I think that the tracking information should be available to the owner of the phone, and only to law enforcement with a warrant or owner's permission. As in the case discussed the other day where the phone was in a stolen car with an infant and the owner requested tracking and was denied by the carrier. As the owner of the phone was requesting the info there should have been no need for a warrant to get the information from the carrier. Especially since the life of a child was in danger. -Jay

That's a good point but I see a problem with that. What if someone you know is out to commit a crime as it happens with domestic violence victims and you want to stop them by calling the police and you know their cell number. The police would not be able to get their tracking information because you are not the owner of the offender's phone.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by bobolito That's a good point but I see a problem with that. What if someone you know is out to commit a crime as it happens with domestic violence victims and you want to stop them by calling the police and you know their cell number. The police would not be able to get their tracking information because you are not the owner of the offender's phone.

I didn't say it was perfect, but in cases like that infant in the back seat of that car, every minute counts.

-Jay

[Shizuka]

I am a good citizen. I don't fear been tracking because i don’t do anything wrong. But I don’t feel it's ok that the Government must have an unlimited power like a God to spot any citizen at any given time. Remember power corrupts. Today the can track down criminals, but tomorrow? Will they track liberals? Minority group? Democrats? Republicans? Will they use the power to spy on large corporations? Will they use the power to track anybody who thinks different from you? Is this the USA? or the USSR?

The People is the power. How much power is the People willing to give to their government so they can rule wisely?

Does the Government needs ALL, UNLIMITED, ALMIGHTY POWER to keep people safe?

I know any law enforcement agency can get a warrant as simple as just making a phone call. But at least there is a record that they were tracking down that average Joe.

[guy2]

You are correct ultimate power corrupts.Today it may be cell tracking but tommorow what rights do they intend to infringe upon next?

[Fire14]

Sounds like people are concerned with the "Big Brother" Syndrome, and I can understand the concern.
But we are still in a time of war & some rules do need to be bent to catch terrorists or other major threats to this country, it's when it's used for tracking ordinary people like us (even though we don't have anything to hide) on a regular basis, such as if they put it in the Patriot Act as a long term or permanent act that it would be a concern to our rights.

They could be tracking this post and entire board right now.

[bobolito]

That's exactly where I stand, fire14. People need to realize times have changed. If we don't change our mentality, we are going to let technology serve the criminals and terrorist and not us.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by Fire14 Sounds like people are concerned with the "Big Brother" Syndrome, and I can understand the concern. But we are still in a time of war & some rules do need to be bent to catch terrorists or other major threats to this country, it's when it's used for tracking ordinary people like us (even though we don't have anything to hide) on a regular basis, such as if they put it in the Patriot Act as a long term or permanent act that it would be a concern to our rights. They could be tracking this post and entire board right now.

You know "they" are...

[walkguru]

Wirelessly posted (Walkguru's: Nokia6682/2.0 (3.01.1) SymbianOS/8.0 Series60/2.6 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Originally Posted by guy2 They should always have to have a warrant.

Yes, i agree. They should always get one.