dslreports logo
 story category
Feds: Mobile Phone Data 'Not Constitutionally Protected'
Government Shifts From Illegal GPS Devices to Carrier Location Data

While everyone is busy wondering what an FBI agent was allegedly doing with millions of unique Apple UDIDs on an unsecured laptop, the government is busy arguing that data gleaned from mobile phones is not Constitutionally protected. Wired notes that the Obama Administration (the same week they're busy praising "Internet Freedom" and tech privacy protection at the national convention), argued in court this week that location data acquired from carriers is not Constitutionally protected and therefore needs no warrant:

quote:
Click for full size
The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person’s movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant. The administration, citing a 1976 Supreme Court precedent, said such data, like banking records, are “third-party records,” meaning customers have no right to keep it private.
The government's tactical shift comes after it had its wrist slapped by the Supreme Court for illegally planting GPS tracking devices on vehicles, so they've turned to wireless carriers to provide them with location data. Carriers are only just beginning to cash in on this data, selling it to everyone from marketing departments for location-based ads to urban planners who use it to study traffic and travel patterns.

It's fairly clear however that intelligence and law enforcement will be the biggest customers of the carriers' new-found treasure trove. It's also fairly clear that both parties of government don't care much about what you think about it.
view:
topics flat nest 

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

1 recommendation

LightS

Premium Member

Well....

You know, to be honest, I'm not surprised.

One way fails, try another...

Donut
join:2005-06-27
Romulus, MI

Donut

Member

Re: Well....

The only thing place that the feds cant get is in your own head. At least YET.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

Re: Well....

well, they can't get you this way if you have no cell phone!

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

Re: Well....

Right! No cell phone, car with license plate (automated readers), EZ-Pass, credit card for payment, or an uncovered face. You make it sound like it's just soooo easy to get around pervasive surveillance isn't it?

So really what they're saying is there's no reason the government shouldn't know where every citizen is at all times. Yeah, like, anyone should be just fine with that???
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to Donut

Member

to Donut
said by Donut:

The only thing place that the feds cant get is in your own head. At least YET.

That is right... in a few decades computers will be so small that they will fit inside our cells. At that point there is no technical reason for them to literally be in your head.

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

1 recommendation

LightS to Donut

Premium Member

to Donut
Ever read 1984?

That book is a decent prospector of what could eventually be... and, they for sure get in everyones head.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude

Premium Member

Re: Well....

Revelation 13:17
so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

LightS

Premium Member

Re: Well....

said by footballdude:

Revelation 13:17
so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name

I'm not religious, soo...
Terabit
join:2008-12-19

Terabit to LightS

Member

to LightS
It's amazing how so many in this country are paranoid about government and law enforcement. We have the highest rates of violence, murder, and corruption in the developed world people, which needs to be addressed.

Not to mention, American after American is being sued, harassed, or our every move recorded daily by the private sector, yet we continue to be fixated with tin-foil conspiracy theories about government.
EdmundGerber
join:2010-01-04

EdmundGerber

Member

Re: Well....

said by Terabit:

It's amazing how so many in this country are paranoid about government and law enforcement. We have the highest rates of violence, murder, and corruption in the developed world people, which needs to be addressed.

Not to mention, American after American is being sued, harassed, or our every move recorded daily by the private sector, yet we continue to be fixated with tin-foil conspiracy theories about government.

Why are you against privacy? Do you have a monetary interest in our lives?

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Well....

Read telcos posts. He's a liberal cheerleader, you'll notice on his posts he will jump on bashing republicans any chance he gets. If this was about a republican he would've bashed them.

This isn't about freedom, he needs to ra ra for a liberal.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Terabit

Premium Member

to Terabit
said by Terabit:

It's amazing how so many in this country are paranoid about government and law enforcement. We have the highest rates of violence, murder, and corruption in the developed world people, which needs to be addressed.

Not to mention, American after American is being sued, harassed, or our every move recorded daily by the private sector, yet we continue to be fixated with tin-foil conspiracy theories about government.

because we know the private sector is hoarding the information for profit and can be held liable if their data mining piles get out into the public with our private data.

The government on the other hand has the shittiest security short of a screen door on a secret lab. if it must be secured you cannot trust the government to secure it. the FBI iphones leak, many other data leaks, the nun who walked right into that nuclear weapons facility. Outside of Fort Knox they could not secure a bunker or a computer in said bunker. And worst of all they have no liability for keeping their data piles secure.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to Terabit

Member

to Terabit
I'm not against law enforcement and I want them to do all they can to make us safe. I'm also not against big business and corporations making lots of money. I'm not against necessary government getting involved in certain services because that's the most feasible/efficient approach.

I feel like a broken record on this because I say it so often but well all need rules. Do rules sometimes make it harder to do the right thing? Sure. But as we I hope we all believe, it's better to let a guilty man go free than send someone to prison who is innocent. There is no exception to this rule. The moment any of us truly believe this kind of collateral damage is acceptable, those who seek to undermine the freedoms we enjoy, have won.

It's absurd for the the government to believe the public has no right to expect privacy regarding data collected by cell carriers. HIPAA has made it quite clear that we can expect the utmost privacy regarding medical records. In fact, HIPAA has gone so overboard that parents of 12 year old children can be billed and liable for the services they receive (they are, after all, minors) but they cannot, without the child's express permission, get access to the procedures performed. Nor can the doctor reveal anything the child discusses with them. Now that's what I call PRIVACY.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

I wonder

Is the location data reported by the device? Or reported by the cell tower itself? I'm curious to know if being on a VPN 24/7 that's connected across the huge pond would give a false location.

Matt

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: I wonder

I'm guessing it's reported by the tower, but even if it were reported by the device it would be based on GPS; nothing to do with IP and VPN.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: I wonder

said by vpoko:

I'm guessing it's reported by the tower, but even if it were reported by the device it would be based on GPS; nothing to do with IP and VPN.

Yeah but how would they find your location if your GPS is disabled? I mean I know for a fact they can find your location just based off your 3G/4G data, but I'm not sure they can find you via GPS if you have it turned off.

Matt

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: I wonder

Yes, you're probably right about that (as is tshirt, above), probably just tower-based location.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One to mmay149q

MVM

to mmay149q
Aren't ALL cell phones now required to maintain GPS locations for 911 purposes? I was of the understanding that the "emergency location" services stayed active even if you manually turned off the GPS options.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: I wonder

said by Camelot One:

Aren't ALL cell phones now required to maintain GPS locations for 911 purposes? I was of the understanding that the "emergency location" services stayed active even if you manually turned off the GPS options.

I believe so, however what if these features are disabled unless otherwise enabled by the wireless provider? I mean it's possible it reports location via GPS each time it interacts with a new cell tower and then turns off, with the ability to permanently turning it on in the case of an emergency via the wireless provider.

Matt

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: I wonder

It is possible for all NEWER phones to recieve a signal from the network to FORCE a GPS fix, even if user functions are off, but it is not continuous tracking , this has been used in several DEA and other federal cases (probably got more pubisity then they wanted on that, the cartels and major terror groups are now well aware, note that Bin Laden allowed NO phones
GPS is a battery eater on most phones, has to due with the processing and map updates, so many turn it off unless needed, less of a problem with newer faster CPUs on top end phones now.
If you're are going to have a "burner" phone take the battery out between calls and before you toss it or it's a beacon saying "I was here"

Anon
@sbcglobal.net

Anon to Camelot One

Anon

to Camelot One
It's really time to upgrade those video cards... The rest of your machine is solid.

anon_4353453
@107.38.84.x

anon_4353453 to mmay149q

Anon

to mmay149q
i don't know about cell phone but browsers are shipping with some kind of Geolocation API i think its called and in Opera its turned on by default so if i use my netbook and broadband cell modem they could track me by the towers or if i have wi-fi enabled they could track me by router SSID(?) - this is why google had all these vans driving all over the U.S. mapping wifi signal to physical location - so they can track your physical location and supposedly only to sell better targeted ads, but who knows if it stops there. Pretty soon they will be putting cheap RFID in all the stuff you buy(helps with theft/loss prevention + inventory + easier check out) and then its possible they start having RFID readers all over the place so they can track you as you move around your city - at least this is what i hear COULD happen. If they can make money off tracking you it probably WILL happen imo, if the internet is any example.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to mmay149q

Premium Member

to mmay149q
It trianglized by the cellphone system, rather than GPS which is the phone reporting it's GPS location.
If you are in range of two or more towers it can be quite accurate, one tower they know distance from the tower and which cell/sector for direction.
Your VPN doesn't disquise the phones location from the cell system but those on the recieve end would still see you at the endpoint of the VPN.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

1 recommendation

Mr Matt

Member

Location tracking was not to save accident victims!

When the government announced they were mandating that the cellular carriers must incorporate a means, to continuously track the location of a cell phone, it was not to save that little old lady in tennis shoes that ran off the road and emergency responders could not find. The reason for location tracking was to spy on American Citizens and I said so.

Over the years there have been discussions about whether or not location tracking was really off when a cell phone was turned off. In order to trick American Citizens into accepting cell phones that could provide location tracking the BIG LIE was that location tracking would only be turned on if the subscriber dialed 911. Obviously that was bull shit.

If the government was sincere they would pass a law prohibiting any company whose services was capable of recording location data, to keep that data only long enough for the system to function and then discard it. I would not own a wireless device that did not have a removable battery. I do not believe that when any piece of Apple wireless crap is turned off that the location tracking capability is turned off.

There was a scandal in South Florida several years ago when it was discovered that the police were activating LoJack on hot chicks cars just to snoop on their activities. Unfortunately for the police LoJack tracked whenever one of their systems were activated and the police could not give a good reason why those systems were being turned on.

Our Orwellian government cannot resist any advancement in technology to use against it's citizens to snoop on them. Moments after Bell invented the telephone some prick government attorney had the police tap it. It took new laws to put police on a short leash when they engaged in wire trapping for fishing expeditions.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Location tracking was not to save accident victims!

Isn't location tracking part of the system's design? Doesn't the cell system have to know WHERE a phone is in order to route a call to it? If so, it's kind of necessary for the cell system to REMEMBER where the phone is. Even if the phone stops communicating, the system is still going to have to REMEMBER where it last "heard" the phone "ping" it. At a minimum, if the cell phone is on and ready to receive a call, your general location is known (by general, at least the zip code).

I have no doubt that it's much more specific than this because in many areas, multiple towers allow trigonometry to provide a much more precise location of the phone -- especially if it's moving.

I thought another requirement of the cell system is ranging. That is, it's important for the system to know how far away the cell phone is so that it can precisely time when the phone is free to transmit and not collide with other transmitters.

IMO -- the mechanics of the system sort of point to the fact that a fairly specific location can be determined. Certainly specific enough to warrant interest by those who find value in knowing where folks are -- especially folks who may appear to be involved in suspicious activities.

Still doesn't give them any right to access the information without following a good set of rules and demonstrating sufficient justification to support those suspicions.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

1 edit

Noah Vail

Premium Member

The last administration that wasn't anti Civil Liberty was..

Hmmm. Jefferson?

Look at the government's argument for anytime-monitoring-of-anyone.
quote:
"When a cell phone user transmits a signal to a cell tower for his call to be connected, he thereby assumes the risk that the cell phone provider will create its own internal record of which of the company’s towers handles the call.

Thus, it makes no difference if some users have never thought about how their cell phones work; a cell phone user can have no expectation of privacy in cell-site information."

The Obama admin claims that the act of transmitting a cell signal
presumes we are responsibly able to assume the risk
of our provider creating records of our activity.

Problem with that.
We have can't prevent our provider from creating records of us.
Yet the Obama administration insists we assume the risk for an activity, they know is beyond our control.

And that is their basis for warrantless monitoring of each and any American.

Who wants 4 more years of this thinking (or 8 more years or 12 more)?

Seriously, who do you vote for when both candidates are on the same side, and it's the side that sees you as property?

Obama has cleanly adopted every privacy eroding measure introduced in the Bush administration.
I've no reason to believe Romney wouldn't do the same. Certainly McCain would have.

The only idea I have is to maintain a line of single-term-PotUS until they get the idea.

Oh yea. Burn the press for consistently failing to properly cover an issue that will impact us for lifetimes.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios

Member

Re: The last administration that wasn't anti Civil Liberty was..

the one that will piss off more people when/if they win
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

1 edit

1 recommendation

Mr Matt to Noah Vail

Member

to Noah Vail
I do not think that it is the President trying to erode citizens rights, I believe it is the Justice Department. Historically the Justice Department has said anything as an excuse to erode citizens rights, one of the more popular excuses is to protect the children. Until the legislative branch creates new laws to protect citizens privacy rights the Justice Department will try anything to erode citizens privacy. I believe that any US Attorney General would try to expand schemes to erode citizens rights. It is just that Eric Holder that is in the hot seat right now.

I do not believe that the Justice Department cares about protecting citizens rights, it is just about schemes to win high profile cases. This tantrum the Justice Department just pulled is because they are pissed of at the Supreme Court's decision that attaching GPS devices to a vehicle requires a warrant.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: The last administration that wasn't anti Civil Liberty was..

said by Mr Matt:

I do not think that it is the President trying to erode citizens rights, I believe it is the Justice Department.

By which you mean the Attorney General. And the AG is appointed (and subsequently supported) by who?

asdfas
@comcast.net

asdfas

Anon

Re: The last administration that wasn't anti Civil Liberty was..

It does not matter who administration it is (Republican or Democrat)? The result is about the same... Consumers loose!!! No privacy!!! Corporations govern us......
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60 to Noah Vail

Member

to Noah Vail
Romney would do the same as Obama. It's not a question of R vs D, but just the way the government works and thinks these days.

Like your sig about campaign contributions and bribery, but there are plenty of other ways to bribe candidates and officials.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

This is an easy win...

you have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in cellphone location data, because you already share it with the provider, both for operational purposes and likely by the default TOS which gives them harvesting and marketing rights.

••••

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

You have the right...

To bend over and firmly grab your ankles and take a DEEP breath. This is Amerika. Stalin is envious!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Apparently the FBI already holds that position....

As evidenced by the recent whistleblowing.
MTU
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

MTU

Premium Member

Easy info

When residents to the PRC were allowed & encouraged to own and use cell phones, the strategy should be obvious.

Pre-cell, it was a pain to collect pay-phones user data when tracking 'criminals'. All those search warrants. Lots of long nights.

Cellular may have originated as a customer-friendly device, but the various Gov & LE agencies are enjoying the easy data.

nonamesleft
join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI

nonamesleft

Member

Constitution doesn't exist according to feds

Need to get a lease on the feds, completely out of control, laws don't apparently apply to them.

anon_7654345
@107.38.84.x

anon_7654345

Anon

Re: Constitution doesn't exist according to feds

said by nonamesleft:

Need to get a lease on the feds, completely out of control, laws don't apparently apply to them.

not only the feds but ALL gov't officials. when they break the law we're supposed to look the other way while they get a slap on the wrist and then get still get full benefits and pensions.

btw, they're trying to mandate putting tracker chips on school children in Texas now because, of course, the students are the schools administrators' meal tickets. more students in class every day, more money from uncle sam.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

Me to the Feds

Kiss my ass

ARGONAUT
Have a nice day.
Premium Member
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN

ARGONAUT

Premium Member

CATS

"All your database are belong to us"...