Court OK's warrantless tracking of phone GPS

[mewalke]

Which flag would be appropriate at this time: A) the Stars and Bars, flown upside down to indicate a nation in severe distress; or B) the Jolly Roger?

I'd be laughing if the whole state of things didn't make me slightly sick to my stomach. I'm going to go with both flags. Maybe we are all just paranoid .

[mewalke]

Your cell provider can track your location any time the phone is turned on, using the location of the cell tower you're pinging. If you're nearby two cell towers, they can pinpoint your location with pretty good accuracy. The only way to avoid this is to turn off your phone and remove the battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In Europe, where most countries have a constitutional guarantee on the secrecy of correspondence..."

That quote from the Wiki page makes me sad. That European countries have SOME constitutional protections that we don't. The EU sure has been taking private companies to task over privacy issues.

[Dave2]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 9R20130805
Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans

(Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

So... Am I reading this right? Does it mean that the DEA is tampering with evidence as a matter of policy? Seems like that could hurt their credibility.

[Excaliber]

Your cell provider can track your location any time the phone is turned on, using the location of the cell tower you're pinging. If you're nearby two cell towers, they can pinpoint your location with pretty good accuracy. The only way to avoid this is to turn off your phone and remove the battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In Europe, where most countries have a constitutional guarantee on the secrecy of correspondence..."

That quote from the Wiki page makes me sad. That European countries have SOME constitutional protections that we don't. The EU sure has been taking private companies to task over privacy issues.

The worst part is that we had even better ones before we stopped holding officeholders accountable for infringing on liberty.

[cheezit]

what happenbs when its two seperate units?

[gigag04]

FYI - the major providers still require you have a warrant, absent a life threatening emergency (kidnapping, suicide, murderer fleeing murder)

It can be scary news in the headlines but won't change how LEOs have to operate.

[talltex]

FYI - the major providers still require you have a warrant, absent a life threatening emergency (kidnapping, suicide, murderer fleeing murder)

It can be scary news in the headlines but won't change how LEOs have to operate.

I'm confused (not a particularly unusual condition). If the current highest court ruling...the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals...says that the data belongs to the providers and is thus excluded from 4th Amendment protection, how can the providers still REQUIRE a government agency requesting the info to have a warrant ? I understand that the providers will file an appeal to the Supreme Court...but until such time that the SCOTUS decides to hear the case...which could be be several years or not at all...the highest court with standing, has issued a valid ruling for those districts within its jurisdiction. CAN the providers ignore that current ruling while the case is being appealed ?

[mewalke]

FYI - the major providers still require you have a warrant, absent a life threatening emergency (kidnapping, suicide, murderer fleeing murder)

It can be scary news in the headlines but won't change how LEOs have to operate.

I'm confused (not a particularly unusual condition). If the current highest court ruling...the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals...says that the data belongs to the providers and is thus excluded from 4th Amendment protection, how can the providers still REQUIRE a government agency requesting the info to have a warrant ? I understand that the providers will file an appeal to the Supreme Court...but until such time that the SCOTUS decides to hear the case...which could be be several years or not at all...the highest court with standing, has issued a valid ruling for those districts within its jurisdiction. CAN the providers ignore that current ruling while the case is being appealed ?

You can always deny a law enforcement request. For corporations, the worst that usually happens is law enforcement comes back with a court order for the info. Typically the big telecom companies will not hand over any identifiable information without a court order.

[talltex]

FYI - the major providers still require you have a warrant, absent a life threatening emergency (kidnapping, suicide, murderer fleeing murder)

It can be scary news in the headlines but won't change how LEOs have to operate.

I'm confused (not a particularly unusual condition). If the current highest court ruling...the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals...says that the data belongs to the providers and is thus excluded from 4th Amendment protection, how can the providers still REQUIRE a government agency requesting the info to have a warrant ? I understand that the providers will file an appeal to the Supreme Court...but until such time that the SCOTUS decides to hear the case...which could be be several years or not at all...the highest court with standing, has issued a valid ruling for those districts within its jurisdiction. CAN the providers ignore that current ruling while the case is being appealed ?

You can always deny a law enforcement request. For corporations, the worst that usually happens is law enforcement comes back with a court order for the info. Typically the big telecom companies will not hand over any identifiable information without a court order.

Well, that's the same as it's always been and that hasn't changed...they still have to have a court order to get the info, but they don't have to justify it with probable cause/reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity that they previously had to in order to get a warrant issued. Before they couldn't request specific info without a search warrant because each person's individual data was considered THEIR property.