digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

EFF: Warrant should be required to obtain cell location data

arstechnica.com — The government shouldn't be able to obtain a person's cell location data without an appropriate warrant, argue the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Pennsylvania

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 08/08/2008, -1/+37But they still do it anyway. We have a criminal regime not a government.
  • jodimcmullen, on 08/08/2008, -0/+26These organizations are all trying desperately to hold on to our remaining civil rights. You should help support any of them that you can, even if it's only with a small donation. Important work for YOU and ME.
    • Sil369, on 08/09/2008, -2/+4Hey if they want to listen to my minutes, let them pay for my phone bill first, then we can talk :)
  • merlinus, on 08/08/2008, -0/+16In order to maintain a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, and also transparency in government, the government must not be able to have access to information like this without review by an independent party such as a judge. In other words, a warrant.
    • trekie1701, on 08/09/2008, -0/+9The thing is I totally agree and the fact is that gov't has just gotten lazy. If they ring up a judge on their phone and present a piece of evidence that warrants a further investigation then sure, by all means. All it takes is a fifteen minute phone call and they can't even do that.
      • Peko, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2Well, yeah, but that leaves a paper trail. The cops need to write something - some sort of reason - why they're requesting the warrant. So it's easier to track gross abuse.

        I am not a lawyer - but also - aren't the warrants (the justification and/or the execution) subject to challenge in court?
  • ancientworldnow, on 08/09/2008, -4/+1I agree, or else the world would end up like this: http://vimeo.com/1392246
  • bluesman3535, on 08/09/2008, -0/+6Invest in carrier pigeons---slow, but private!
    • cnot3, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2They're like a fortune cookie with wings.
    • niznik, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2dude - I've tried, but they always ***** over my car before they squeeze through the mailbox with the reply.
  • meghalc, on 08/09/2008, -0/+3Google maps gives us a glimps of how it works!
  • Wiini, on 08/09/2008, -6/+7What's the point?

    Citizens in the United States no longer find these things important. It's okay that Walmart and Costco want to look into my bags and check off my receipts. That's perfectly fine. What do I care about privacy I have nothing to hide?

    You and all of your 'rights'. They're not important unless I need them. And there is no reason to excercise them, because I'm not needing them right now.

    That's how we think these days. So what's the point of fighting it.

    Unless the US pulls it's head out of it's bum, and it's citizens start to participate in active government (And no, simply holding up "obama" signs doesn't make you a real patriot), we're going to lose all those rights that so many have done to create for us, and helped us keep.
    • lonehunter01, on 08/09/2008, -0/+3it's = it is
    • Speed, on 08/09/2008, -0/+6To be fair, there is a big diff between listening in on your phone calls and checking receipts on your way out.
    • Ajajadude, on 08/09/2008, -2/+6Wal-Mart and Costco are attempting to reduce their shrink. Stores do that in areas with higher than normal theft. Case-in-point: A Best Buy in a town I used to work in didn't check receipts unless you set off the alarm (sometimes). But if I go to a Best Buy about 20 minutes farther north in an area of higher crime, they check every receipt. Since I work in retail, I understand the reasons behind this. Any loss in profit means they cut back on expenses which usually negatively impacts the customer, directly or indirectly. Basically, there's no law or Constitutional right that says I can walk out of a store with merchandise without them making sure you didn't pay for it. Don't like it? Feel free to shop online.

      And don't be a dick to the guy making barely above minimum wage there. It's not his policy. Odds are, knowing people who work at those places, it's either some dude working through school or someone who needed an easy, second job and you're being an absolute dick for making his life that much harder. You want to take out your insecurities on someone? Call a CEO.

      And what's up with this doom-and-gloom? "Best Buy looks at my receipt, police state! The Constitution is being burned, help!" Yeah, checks-and-balances are good things. Oversight is a good thing. But we're so far from some sort of dictatorship or whatever you people think we're on the verge of becoming, it's getting old real quick.

      Yes, I know, you people are going to Digg me down and try and pull the showing receipt=showing your papers to the SS nonsense and how we have no freedom anymore. Well, I'll just say this: if we have no freedom, then how are you on the internet dogging on the government? In many other countries, you'd be getting a nice little visit from some people in uniform who might be offering you a vacation (whether you want one or not).
      • Wiini, on 08/09/2008, -2/+3"Wal-Mart and Costco are attempting to reduce their shrink. Stores do that in areas with higher than normal theft. " - - - Study after Study has shown that the majority of Shrink occurs internally, not externally. This fact does not change in varying neighborhoods. Stores attempting to reduce their shrink would be much better off solving the problem, not pissing off their customers.

        "Basically, there's no law or Constitutional right that says I can walk out of a store with merchandise without them making sure you didn't pay for it. Don't like it?" - - That's where you're incorrect. They're free to ask me for it, however I'm protected by my right to privacy to say no. They have no right to search my person or my bag. While the constitutional right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure is targeted towards the government/law enforcement, a private entity, such as Wal-Mart or Costco is no more able or entitled to search my property or person. You're simply confused.

        And what's up with this doom-and-gloom? "Best Buy looks at my receipt, police state! The Constitution is being burned, help!" Yeah, checks-and-balances are good things. Oversight is a good thing. But we're so far from some sort of dictatorship or whatever you people think we're on the verge of becoming, it's getting old real quick. - - - Sure, I agree. Often times the fringe political activists that are fond of the constitution are quick to act. However, you're confused on why people are reacting the way they are. It's not necessarily the level of change alone that is alarming, but the amount of change that has taken place over the last 8-10 years. As far as our rights being 'oppressed' and changes to way we view and enjoy our personal freedoms, there has been more changes, and drastic at that, over the last 10 years than there has in the previous 200 years. That is alarming, because at that rate, we'll be on our way to a 'police state' (your words, not mine) in the next 20 to 30 years. Waiting until there is a problem is the Most dangerous thing to do.



        Yes, I know, you people are going to Digg me down and try and pull the showing receipt=showing your papers to the SS nonsense and how we have no freedom anymore. Well, I'll just say this: if we have no freedom, then how are you on the internet dogging on the government? In many other countries, you'd be getting a nice little visit from some people in uniform who might be offering you a vacation (whether you want one or not). - - - I did not immediately digg you down. I took the opportunity to explain to you where I think you're either A) wrong, or B) not thinking it through far enough.

        Hopefully I've shed some light on why people like me are so quick to point out some of the problems of our government. I admitted a critical flaw in our thought processes, in that we're quick to jump and scream "fire!" but I also explained why, and hopefully shed a little light into how quickly situations like this can escalate to a point where our claims become reality.


        If you'll give me just another second, I'll close with this:
        Being aware of your rights isn't enough. Like all muscles, you have to exercise your rights frequently to ensure that they are still healthy and alive. Leaving them until you need them, you'll find that they're worn down, and unable to help you when you need them most. Too few citizens exercise their rights, and unfortunately, more and more people are becoming even less aware of them. If you're willing, look at some of your comments. Are you criticizing my hopes that people will not only be aware of their rights (and, are you aware of them?), but that they'll actually use them? If so, are you sure that's the right thing to do? Maybe it's time to look again at what's genuinely important to you.
      • Ajajadude, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2Trust me, I'm well aware that over 60% of shrink is due to internal theft. The thing about that is if the company has a good setup, they catch the moron stupid enough to steal quite easily. My company is far behind the times, technology-wise, but it's pretty easy for them to catch people stealing money and even product. Hell, if there's reason to believe you're stealing, it can be pretty easy to fire someone. The people they have running the loss prevention department know what they're doing.

        There's also no law that says they can't follow you out to your car, write down your license plate number and call the cops. They're not searching you, they're asking for proof of purchase. If it wasn't for lawyers, shoplifting wouldn't be a big issue. Unfortunately, companies don't want their employees to detain "customers" even if they caught the person red-handed. They'll try and spin it that it's not worth the money to the company for you to get hurt stopping someone. Yeah, it can cost thousands upon thousands of dollars for a company to put you on medical leave and pay your medical bills. It's more expensive for them if a customer sues because they were stopped. Basically, if you act like a dick and become completely uncooperative, and aggressive like most people here on Digg I'm sure do when they're asked to flash a receipt for two seconds, it makes the person at the door assume you have something to hide. Again, leading to them calling the police if it's deemed worth it or they need to make an example.

        If you look at the past 8-10 years, who's been in charge? The moment there's a new president, things change. It's a simple fact. We went from a country with a record surplus to a country with a (growing) record deficit because of policies enacted by current leaders. You look back throughout the 20th century and there are plenty of instances where the government gave itself some scary power without the public even knowing about it. Do you think the feds could get away with blackballing large amounts of the population like they did back during the Communist scare? Do you think someone like McCarthy could get away with his hearings for long, assuming they could even be started? Sure, the government has tons of data on us. There's an unprecedented level of information that can be easily obtained about anyone at anytime just by doing a simple Google search. And anyone who knows what they're doing can find out a hell of a lot more. Basically, it's the same old song, just a new dance. The difference being that the government can't hide things from the people. It's too damned hard.

        Trust me, I exercise my rights. And my mom, the super-liberal feminazi that she is, exercises enough rights for over 100 people. If I, and even people like my mom, couldn't exercise their rights to the extent that some/many here on Digg would lead others to believe they couldn't, I wouldn't be around to type this and most of the people I know would be in some hole-of-a-cell that no one knows about.

        There's a difference between making sure people are aware of their rights (people I interact with are well aware of their rights, they're just too lazy to care) and the fear mongering I see more and more of here on Digg that the streets will be filled with troops and we'll be living under a Soviet Russia-esque regime in the near future. It isn't any different than what the people in power try to do to the entire country to keep things like the Patriot Act intact. And the fact that people seem to be concerned with their damned receipts than they are about more important things in their lives says a lot to me. If someone ISN'T using their rights, I think we all know some group like the ACLU will step in and give them a hand.
  • lonedust, on 08/09/2008, -0/+6Where is Lucius Fox when we need him?
  • bluesman3535, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2One way to go about peaceful change toward restoring privacy is a 'privacy litmus test' line of questions for any politician being interviewed by a high profile reporter.
  • YF19AVF, on 08/09/2008, -0/+8It can be a good idea, but cell location signals can be used to saving lives as well. I heard a story on the news about 6 to 8 months ago about a woman that went missing for several days or so. it took so long to find her because the cell company were refusing to hand over the cell location with out a lengthy court order. I guess what I am saying is it would be ideal that cell location data would only be used for emergencies, but it can't always happen. I guess checks and balances are needed.
    • Tarnum, on 08/09/2008, -3/+4... torture "can be used to save lives as well"
      • Ajajadude, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1No it can't. There isn't a single shred of evidence that says it can. There is evidence, like the above person pointed out, that being able to track your cell phone without all the red tape can save lives. Because in this ***** day and age, people are liable to sue the phone company after they've been rescued because they gave up the info without a court order.
    • merlinus, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1That's why they (could) allow for warrants to be submitted within (e.g.) 48 hours of the need for such data. This is how FISA (used to) work.
  • MannaPC, on 08/09/2008, -8/+8I know a guy whose father passed away from a heart attack and the dude went literally ape ***** and they couldn't keep this kid out of trouble (He was 15.) One night he snuck out, decided to drag race downtown, totaled his mom's truck, wrecked the three people he was racing with's cars and then a pedestrian who fractured a back disc. What does the kid do? Flee! Well, they couldn't find him but found the truck a block away with blood all around it. The police started a search, pulled his CLSI records and found him down by the railroad tracks with a concussion and soaked in gasoline. What I am getting to is that they did this in a matter of ~3-4 hours and if they had been required to obtain a warrant in the small town of ours, how long would it have took? Great idea, but needs some lee-way seeing how none of us would like to be spied on for unjust reasons, but the same idea could actually endanger our lives more =
    • ChemiosMurphy, on 08/09/2008, -4/+7I'm sorry. People die. Warrants are needed to preserve the rights of the citizens. As soon as you make exceptions for national security or small towns the point becomes who watches the watchmen. The small town needs to speed things up then. It's unreasonable search and seizure. Look at all the ***** that was enacted after 9/11. I'm sorry, but people die and the majority should not suffer because one person possibly died. I'm sorry.
      • SpectreFire, on 08/09/2008, -6/+4You're an idiot. Stop... talking.
      • Ajajadude, on 08/09/2008, -4/+2If laws were as rigid as steel, we'd be a lot closer to that world you have an irrational fear of. If laws were absolute, this would be a world I wouldn't want to live in.
    • Srcc, on 08/09/2008, -0/+3I don't think this is the sort of situation the furor is over. When police are confronted with that sort of situation they can get an emergency warrant (usually this can happen VERY quickly) or just ask the mom, who is probably in charge of her kid's cell phone anyway. In fact that's probably how the police got the info.
  • mcottier, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5They had to be told this? Why on earth would they think it would be okay without a warrant!
  • zdiggler, on 08/09/2008, -5/+1They located a murderer using a tracking technique, well they had description of the car and they were be able to pin point his location and took him down.
  • zdiggler, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1If you're doing crime, don't use cell phone, use satellite phone!
  • plhofmei, on 08/09/2008, -2/+2Nazi (George) Bush strikes again.
    • Ajajadude, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Godwin's Law. Seriously, we all hate Bush. We get it. Given the chance, he could be the next Hitler. Come up with new material.
  • pe5t1lence, on 08/09/2008, -1/+4Some 911 offices have this system. I can only imagine it would help and getting a warrant in a 911 call would be stupid.
    There is a line between using this for good and an invasion of privacy, but this is a hard line to see.
    • chrisduser, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5Corruption steps over every line.
    • rockstar1o9, on 08/09/2008, -0/+3Emergency & medically life-threatening situations have always been exceptions. If you are seriously injured, I believe the EMTs or hospital ER doctors can pull up your past medical records without trying to obtain patient consent first.

      Any 911 call can be location traced...I have no problem with that. Tracing for criminal investigations and other non-emergency reasons require a warrant. I don't see what'd be so hard about that.

      Even now, I believe addresses for landline numbers only show on up a 911 dispatcher's screen only after someone dials 911. I don't see why cell phones can't operate the exact same way.
  • SpectreFire, on 08/09/2008, -2/+6This should only be applicable to the police. Which honestly, isn't much of a big deal, it's just like getting a warrant to enter someone's home.

    BUT, rescue services such as paramedics and firefighters, should have access to it at a moment's notice.
    • shawnolds, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1"BUT, rescue services such as paramedics and firefighters, should have access to it at a moment's notice."

      Only if you have personally given them the right to have it, otherwise absolutely not!! You have no idea how this information can and will be abused. That is why we have a 4th Amendment right to privacy. Our founders understood where the line should be drawn. Trust them, not the criminals in this administration.
      • SpectreFire, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, cause when you're lost in the in the forest, or unconcious after getting in an accident on a deserted stretch of road, you can easily call them and give them permission.

        The founders lived in a world far different than ours. I trust their intentions, I don't trust that they could see over a century in the future. Emergency services are NOT the government, they're civilian. Their focus isn't on invading your privacy, their focus is on saving your life.
  • dusanmal, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4It is interesting how specific tracking possibility when explained catches people's attention. However, there are modern technology "bigwigs" that want to force this abuse down our throats as beneficial and mandatory. Not so long ago there were quite famous guests on the quite famous TWIT show arguing that for such a paltry reason as traffic congestion we all should be forced to participate in the even more precise tracking system or not allowed on highways. So, watch out for fads of this type. Govt. will not waste the effort on private data if it can make everyone voluntarily give up the same info for some trivial benefit (ex. traffic report).
  • ggnictee, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5A general reply to the 4 or 5 "what about emergencies or 911 calls" posts.
    For those of you lucky enough to not have been to law school: in an emergency you are considered to consent to help (that's why an emt can come into your house without a warrant and then work on you without asking.) 911 cell tracking is under the same rule. So no warrant needed: you auto-consent.
    As far as other emergencies (a kid running off or you're lost in the woods.) For the minor his/her parents can consent for him/her. If you're lost: see above about emergency consents.

    So long story short: if they make a rule that you need a warrant to get personal information (like the constitution) in emergencies you already consent.

    ta-da
  • Speed, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2For the most part, I agree. However, if I go missing in the woods, or call 911 because someone (my even myself) is dieing and the call got cutoff before the location could be given, I want them to track me down based on the cell call, if necessary.
    Nothing is black and white, and unfortunately, that includes civil liberties (think shouting "fire" in the middle of a crowded movie theater).
  • Srcc, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2Right now cell phones give away tons of information about their users, and theres little to no protection of that information. We've got new technologies but have failed to apply traditional civil liberty protections to them. As a society we've already decided how to balance privacy and security, and we decided on warrants. Just because something is new (like cell phone location data and remote eavesdropping) doesn't mean a warrant is optional.
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Well...duh!
  • niznik, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Cell-site location is a very powerful tool against crime, terrorism and can also assist in emergency situations. It comes down to if we trust the people who have access to this information. It will always be a difficult question. However, letting an independent arbiter determine if access to the information is required appears to be a good idea in a non-emergency situation, but is the burden of extra protection against civil liberties worth the price?
    • LenBaird, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1"is the burden of extra protection against civil liberties worth the price?"
      ABSOLUTELY! Our civil liberties are the most important thing we have.. or perhaps I should say had.
  • zippy757, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1odd....when GOOGLE routinely inspects, analyzes, sorts and then uses your most private information in your emails, no one cares. When GOOGLE then continues to enhance its service to include basically street level surveillance, no one cares. When GOOGLE spends BILLIONS on FCC initiative for cell phone, in which 1 meter location data is part of the design, no one cares.



  • LenBaird, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1It's bad that the article pre-supposes that they are doing it right now, and not being stopped.
    "Should we stop the government from systematically infringing on our rights as free humans?"
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.