SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that a "probable cause" warrant is required before law enforcement can obtain cellular location records for an individual. Two thieves in Baltimore were identified when their locations were correlated with robberies near Baltimore. Their conviction will be allowed to stand, as law enforcement had a good-faith belief that the technique was permissible at the time, but future investigations will be subject to the ruling. The US 4th Circuit is a Federal court that handles appeals from the states of Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The ruling does not apply in other districts, which so far have ruled against the requirement, but could allow cases in other states to reach the Supreme Court.
Ars Technica coverage:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/warrant-required-for-mobile-phone-location-tracking-us-appeals-court-rules/
Link to the ruling, in PDF form:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/124659.P.pdf
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:56PM
sure, it sucks to have a tracking "collar" around your neck all the time.
privacy should be respected!
however the cell phone technology only works because the phone and cell tower know where they are.
so the question:
if this technology ONLY works BECAUSE OF TRACKING, why go through hoops and loops, bend back backwards to make it "untrackable" and to shoehorn location-privacy onto it?
much simpler (also in creating laws) would be to officially track every cell phone (go with the flow so to speak) and allow law enforcement to use this location data to catch criminals (just like in the case of just correlating data)!
ofc the "criminals ..errr ... cell phone users need to be educated that they indeed are wearing a collar(!!!) and if they don't want to be tracked that they forfeit this inherently tracking technology or switch off the cell phone if they don't want to be tracked.
*KISS* i say!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:00PM
You lost it with that bit about "education". Few people are interested in how things work - they just want all the bling, all the convenience, without any unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, it's not all that difficult for the cops to just "get a warrant".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:29PM
Meanwhile, it's not all that difficult for the cops to just "get a warrant".
Warrents are supposed to be to search a particular place(s) for a particular thing(s), and supported by probable cause.
It inherently violates the the fourth amendment to get a general search order for everything in the vicinity.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:58PM
Yes, good point. But, I can understand that the odd character, now and then, might be inherently dangerous, and possess all sorts of valuable data that the government needs. Government has reasonably required that a warrant be obtained before tapping a telephone line. Want to put a dangerous character under surveillance? There should be some acceptable procedure for getting a warrant. That isn't carte blanche to put all his relatives, busniness associates, drinking buddies, and everyone he might meet on the street all under surveillance. It's alright to watch HIM, after obtaining a warrant.
And, judges shouldn't just rubber stamp the damned things either.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 06 2015, @02:31PM
The "particular thing(s)" is a bit fuzzy: If the officer enters a home to look for a gun that they believe was used in an armed robbery, and they happen to see several kilos of cocaine, then they legally can and probably will bust the homeowner for the cocaine regardless of whether the gun was found. Also, if they've busted somebody with other evidence for committing a crime (e.g. they have someone on video, and catch them on the street), obtaining a search warrant for that person's home can be very straightforward, and mostly a matter of looking for "tools associated with the crime".
Moral of the story: Don't be roommates with somebody who is doing something very very illegal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:44PM
"drugs" have been the #1 reason for shredding the constitution for more than 40 years, ever since the creation of the DEA. thankfully there is a relatively recent precedent [jones-mayer.com] that confirms that general warrants are still unconstitutional and illegal, and police acting on them lose their qualified immunity. warrants must specifically list the items for which they are searching, period. if police act on an unconstitutional warrant (if it has the words "all" or "any" or similar words anywhere on it) or take more than is specifically listed on the warrant, you sue the fuck out of them and the linked precedent ensures your win.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:53PM
mother fuck, correction, a more recent precedent [armsandthelaw.com] on that case from SCOTUS states that willful ignorance of the police ensures they can shred the constitution as much as they want:
how the fuck could anyone not realize that general warrants are unconstitutional? the 4th clearly states:
ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians, but if you're a fucking pig, you can do whatever the fuck you want and get away with it. disgusting, i am utterly appalled. the supreme court should be indicted for treason for this constitution-shattering ruling.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 07 2015, @06:57AM
They have the guns, "The rule of Law" and years of conditioning the public into thinking they are sheep.
They can do whatever the fuck they want.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:28PM
"... and allow law enforcement to use this location data to catch criminals"
and if criminals leave their phone at home then what will law enforcement do ?
Invading the privacy of the innocent only serves to undermine trust in government, some may be cynical about the concept of trusting a government, but it should be possible.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:18PM
Not to mention that the criminals (the smarter ones, anyway) will almost inevitably find some way around it or just stop using the phones.
Oh, what's that, you say? Now we're monitoring all the innocents and the reason for doing it doesn't even exist anymore?
"Whoops"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:32PM
Or, rather than giving up and letting the government violate the highest law of the land, maybe we should demand that it get warrants. Amazing concept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:24PM
The cell phone towers may need your location to work, but the police should never be allowed to access any of it without a warrant.