Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds push for tracking cell phones
CNET News ^ | February 1, 2010 | Declan McCullagh

Posted on 02/11/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; agenda; bigbrother; cell; cellphoneprivacy; cellphones; doj; fourthamendment; gps; gpstracking; lping; military; obama; palin; phone; privacy; privacyrights; spy; telecom; veterans; warrantlesssearch; warrants; wiretapping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

1 posted on 02/11/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
Figures.

Track ordinary Americans, but not terrorist cells.

Incompetent, freedom-hating boobs.

2 posted on 02/11/2010 8:59:58 AM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
3 posted on 02/11/2010 9:01:48 AM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
What is most interesting about this, and the author IMO intentionally left it out, is this question; Did the feds in past instances have a warrant to obtain this tracking information? Is the current administration seeking to avoid the warrant requirement through assuming that we have no right to privacy? It appears this is the actual intent of this entire argument, and would not surprise me one bit if this is the current administration's push.
4 posted on 02/11/2010 9:04:25 AM PST by carolinacrazy (Bow to your sensei.... BOW TO YOUR SENSEI...... www.jackassdemocrats.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

I will go for this if I am allowed to audit all of Obama’s cell phone calls and e mail every day.


5 posted on 02/11/2010 9:04:42 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINO's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Note to bank robbers: use pay as you go. lol


6 posted on 02/11/2010 9:07:15 AM PST by j_guru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Conversely, cell phone records have been ruled inadmissible in court to establish an alibi since such records only establish the device’s whereabouts not its owner’s.


7 posted on 02/11/2010 9:08:49 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
"In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts"

I was just last year obama was talking about bringing up charges against Bush for tapping TERRORIST phones...now he wants to do it to Americans...again, this photo says everything anyone would ever want to know about barack hussein obama...the muslim.

obama



8 posted on 02/11/2010 9:09:44 AM PST by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Rush leading off with this one.


9 posted on 02/11/2010 9:10:03 AM PST by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

There are many Statist Freepers that agree with Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale. I get that line thrown at me constantly on threads dealing with privacy issues.


10 posted on 02/11/2010 9:10:31 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Haven’t drug dealers already solved this problem with throwaways? The feds are soon going to push for limited-use cell phones to be banned, thereby closing the “Throwaway Loophole”.


11 posted on 02/11/2010 9:11:40 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j_guru

“Note to bank robbers: use pay as you go.”

Or just take the battery out.


12 posted on 02/11/2010 9:12:14 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

pay as you go requires no contract, and they do not verify your ID.


13 posted on 02/11/2010 9:13:39 AM PST by j_guru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

“There are many Statist Freepers that agree with Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale.”

I feel that way. Not in a moral sense, but for practicality’s sake. Anyone who thinks they have privacy on the internet or the telephone is an idiot.


14 posted on 02/11/2010 9:13:46 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

“There are many Statist Freepers that agree with Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale.”

In before the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government” idiots.


15 posted on 02/11/2010 9:16:10 AM PST by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
Big Brother wants to watch the serfs even more than it does now.
16 posted on 02/11/2010 9:16:27 AM PST by TYVets (Let's Roll!!! The leadership of the GOP has no spine and no guts, but we conservatives do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

mmmm mmmmm mmmmmm!


17 posted on 02/11/2010 9:17:06 AM PST by dforest (Who is the real Jim Thompson? I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

There is a way to get those on the left to fight this.

California should announce that if the Feds can do it Cali can do it also.

California can then track the cell phones of all the Hollywood players who claim tax residence in no tax states - Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming - and prove they spend more than 50% of their time in their California residence. Then make them pay for all the liberal nonsense they push down the throats of other taxpayers.


18 posted on 02/11/2010 9:18:36 AM PST by anonsquared (TEA PARTY 2010 - THROW 'EM ALL IN THE HARBOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

GIVE ‘EM AN INCH AND THEYY’LL TAKE A MILE EVERY TIME! WATCH OUT, AMERICA!


19 posted on 02/11/2010 9:18:54 AM PST by Paperdoll (PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS BUT I HAVE M.D..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Practically? Anyone who believes that in practice no privacy exists is an idiot. Wow, it IS easy to put up bovine scat in place of a real argument. And it’s FUN too!/s


20 posted on 02/11/2010 9:20:01 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

Too late, I’m afraid.


21 posted on 02/11/2010 9:20:26 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
For all those who thought they would stop at the PATRIOT Act.
22 posted on 02/11/2010 9:21:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Part of this rests on the claim that we, the freeborn citizens of the “land of the (used to be) free”, don’t “enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy” when we use our cell phones.

In U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that we don’t have privacy in banking because he knows that the teller could see his account when he came in to make a deposit. (!!??)

So, this is just one more dot in the long line of dots that, when connected, allow government to erode and corrode the Fourth Amendment when it comes to the unalienable right to privacy in our persons and papers.


23 posted on 02/11/2010 9:22:01 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

It’s pretty easy. The gang members figured it out long ago. You buy burners. You make one call. You toss it. Open the next burner. Make call. Toss it.

Or you take the chip and/or battery out of your cell. There are always ways around jackboot tactics.


24 posted on 02/11/2010 9:22:08 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
I was just last year obama was talking about bringing up charges against Bush for tapping TERRORIST phones...now he wants to do it to Americans

Bears repeating!

25 posted on 02/11/2010 9:22:12 AM PST by houeto (Remember in November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Part of this rests on the claim that we, the freeborn citizens of the “land of the (used to be) free”, don’t “enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy” when we use our cell phones.

In U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that we don’t have privacy in banking because he knows that the teller could see his account when he came in to make a deposit. (!!??)

So, this is just one more dot in the long line of dots that, when connected, allow government to erode and corrode the Fourth Amendment when it comes to the unalienable right to privacy in our persons and papers.


26 posted on 02/11/2010 9:22:23 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian
That's ok as long as he doesn't mimic that evil George Bush.


27 posted on 02/11/2010 9:22:32 AM PST by McGruff (Don't criticize. Explain to me who I should support other than Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

Same here when I criticized the Bush-Ashcroft USA Patriot Act. I never thought I’d see warrantless “sneak and peek” search laws or “know your customer” banking laws cheered on by anyone claiming to be conservative and posting here...but the majority here supported these measures as they did the ones in question here.(see sec.V) and attacked anyone who questioned the Great Oz, er Bush.


28 posted on 02/11/2010 9:23:36 AM PST by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
There are many Statist Freepers that agree with Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale. I get that line thrown at me constantly on threads dealing with privacy issues.

Privacy only matters when it comes to killing babies by the millions.

29 posted on 02/11/2010 9:23:45 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RINOcrat Party is in charge. There has never been a conservative American government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

“Practically? Anyone who believes that in practice no privacy exists is an idiot.”

Yes. You do know the difference between the way you’d have the world work and the way it does work, correct? For instance, there’s the 4th amendment and the then there’s the practical world of law enforcement.


30 posted on 02/11/2010 9:23:45 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

That reminds me of the way I heard someone handle telemarketers:

“Hey, I’m kinda busy right now, can I have your home phone number and call you back when it’s convenient? No? Why not? You don’t want me calling you at home?”


31 posted on 02/11/2010 9:26:00 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
"Conversely, cell phone records have been ruled inadmissible in court to establish an alibi since such records only establish the device’s whereabouts not its owner’s."

Huh? That doesn't seem very likely. I have seen no ruling establishing such a precedent. Do you have a case or state? I would be interested in reading the judges opinion.

Cellphone evidence may be easily rebutted by either prosecution or defense, but it would be unlikely that a judge would "rule it inadmissible". Its evidentiary value would be something left for the jury to weigh, not the judge, FWIW.

32 posted on 02/11/2010 9:26:28 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

I doubt we could expect them to do this in such a way to where our privacy is respected/protected.

Any day now, I’m SURE 0lberwoman will have a rant on his show about how 0bama is listening in on the phone calls of all Americans..... /not


33 posted on 02/11/2010 9:27:29 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude
There are many Statist Freepers that agree with Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale. I get that line thrown at me constantly on threads dealing with privacy issues.

You shouldn't have anything to hide if you've done nothing wrong. /sarc

I think GPS locations of all politicians should be published via twitter or something like that every 10 minutes.

While they are at it, given today's technology, we can record every word they say and post it on the internet daily as well.

Weekly drug testing of all congresscritters with results posted immediately on the internet should be implemented as well.



34 posted on 02/11/2010 9:28:49 AM PST by zeugma (Proofread a page a day: http://www.pgdp.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bamahead
No reasonable person ever expected privacy with this technology .
35 posted on 02/11/2010 9:29:21 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

“Anyone who believes that in practice no privacy exists is an idiot.”

Oh, and just for the record, do I think NO privacy exists? Of course not. Heck, there’s even privacy in the middle of a public square, if no one happens to be listening.

“Wow, it IS easy to put up bovine scat in place of a real argument.”

What’s funny is how you call my argument bull**** when all I was doing was agreeing with you concerning “Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale”.


36 posted on 02/11/2010 9:30:50 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Did you just tell me that law enforcement should not be restrained by the US Constitution because of ‘practiality’? I think you did...

It is that exact attitude that has caused Freedom and Liberty to wither in this country. I had better stop here because I would get banned if I really tell you what I think.


37 posted on 02/11/2010 9:33:42 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (All of my hate cannot be found, I will not be drowned by your constant scheming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
"In U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that we don’t have privacy in banking because he knows that the teller could see his account when he came in to make a deposit."

Well, that's not exactly what the court held. The court said, correctly, that negotiable instruments are inherently not confidential, hence the "negotiable" part.

You can't write a check to someone and then claim that check is privileged or confidential. That check is a negotiable instrument that could theoretically be endorsed and transferred to any number of people. The signor of the check knows this - or at least they should - when they sign the check, effectively waiving any expectation they might have enjoyed.

38 posted on 02/11/2010 9:34:02 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I don’t have a cite. It was a criminal case in which the defendant’s cell phone was recorded as traveling between two cities during the period of time a murder occurred in one. The defense attempted to use the cell phone’s whereabouts to show the defendant had left the city before the time of the murder and it was not allowed.

Sorry, that’s all I can remember about it.


39 posted on 02/11/2010 9:34:09 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Any man over 35 with washboard abds is either gay or a narcissist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

I vote for all of those!

But you left off taxpayers having total access to congresscritters banking records, real estate loans, speaking fees, board of directors salaries & perks, and business investments.


40 posted on 02/11/2010 9:34:56 AM PST by anonsquared (TEA PARTY 2010 - THROW 'EM ALL IN THE HARBOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
You said it stephenjohnbanker!! Let’s not only audit Zippy’s phone, but let’s ask Congress and the Supremes to lead by example. It’s time that they were subject to their own laws first, and not above any laws!!!!
41 posted on 02/11/2010 9:35:19 AM PST by parthian shot (When do we stop asking and start telling?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
"The defense attempted to use the cell phone’s whereabouts to show the defendant had left the city before the time of the murder and it was not allowed."

That's interesting. I would like to look around for it. Do you have an idea about a time-frame for the case? Was it recent - within this decade, or something from the '90s.

42 posted on 02/11/2010 9:36:11 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
Oops, that should have read...

"...effectively waiving any expectation of privacy they might have enjoyed."

43 posted on 02/11/2010 9:37:33 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian

Obama should have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” when it comes to his birth certificate, school records, etc, since he does claim to be eligible for the highest office in the land.


44 posted on 02/11/2010 9:38:22 AM PST by anonsquared (TEA PARTY 2010 - THROW 'EM ALL IN THE HARBOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey.

They had to look at everyone's phone records to connect those dots. It's a world of difference to listening in on someone stateside in an international call with a member of Al Qaeda.

The press had journalists who WERE communicating directly with AQ. This is the reason for the big stink. Has to be. Time Magazine was one such publication with these contacts.

45 posted on 02/11/2010 9:45:18 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning" Obama 2/4/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

As Rush pointed out, you can’t take the battery out of an iphone.


46 posted on 02/11/2010 9:47:44 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning" Obama 2/4/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
"Feds push for tracking cell phones"

More undeniable proof that Orwell wasn't a novelist, he was an oracle who wrote in novel format!:

47 posted on 02/11/2010 9:51:42 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“As Rush pointed out, you can’t take the battery out of an iphone.”

Then criminals won’t use i-phones.


48 posted on 02/11/2010 9:55:25 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
'Big Brother wants to watch the "serfs" even more than it does now.'

EGGSactly Batman!

('cept the proper term is "proles"...)

49 posted on 02/11/2010 9:56:59 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; a fool in paradise; j_guru
Or just take the battery out.

An almost unknown fact- some phones will still ping the last SIM code for hours after the battery and SIM is gone. Impossible to tell exactly which ones without dissecting them or scanning for a ping.

It's "for the children", of course.

50 posted on 02/11/2010 9:59:45 AM PST by varyouga (2 natural disasters, zerO action. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson