Print 49 comment(s) - last by ven1ger.. on Jan 28 at 5:16 PM

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! (says the DOJ)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hit a brick wall when its Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) of 1966 (5 U.S.C. § 552) lawsuit requesting detailed documents on GPS tracking procedures was rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice.

I. GPS Tracking is Back

The issue of GPS tracking has been a contentious one.  In some high profile incidents federal agents, state police, or local police have attached GPS trackers to citizens’ cars and used the continuous tracking as incriminating evidence.  While law enforcement agencies contend that GPS surveillance is a powerful tool for fighting crime, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) clearly thought otherwise, deciding unanimously (U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259; PDF) that planting GPS trackers on citizens' vehicles generally is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Following the January ruling, the FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann provoked ACLU scrutiny when he spoke at a February law enforcement convention in San Francisco, suggesting that other forms of location tracking were arguably legal.

While not specifically mentioned, one such form of tracking would be to seize citizens' cell phones or request records from mobile carriers in order to gain a record of locations based on tower pings.  Such tracking has only been used in a handful of cases nationwide, but is growing in use.

GC Weissmann also suggested that boats and other types of vehicles may be fair game for tracking as his interpretation was that the SCOTUS prohibition was narrow, only covering GPS tracking on cars.

Boats in harbor
The FBI argues that it may still be legal to use GPS tracking on boats.
[Image Source: Ron Niebrugge]

He also makes reference to a pair of memos, detailing how tracking was to be carried out.

II. ACLU Gets Non-Answer From DOJ

In the wake of those comments the ACLU filed suit to obtain those memos, arguing that their release would make clear whether the FBI and other DOJ agencies are actively pursuing such forms of location tracking, and what the rules are (e.g. whether a warrant is required).

The DOJ gave the ACLU the memos this week, but they were almost entirely redacted, leaving little useable information.  The sweeping redactions were justified in a note from the DOJ that cites the stipulation that FOIA requests can be redacted to prevent the release of information that would aid criminals.

In a blog post Catherine Crump, an attorney for the ACLU, blasts the DOJ memos, writing:

The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time — or whether the government will first get a warrant.

Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?

The DOJ release the FBI memos, but it redacted most of the details in the documents.
[Image Source: Iceni]

Given the DOJ's relative non-response it appears that the DOJ and ACLU will continue to square of in federal court or possibly in another Supreme Court case.  

The ACLU's position is clear -- warrantless tracking is a danger to Americans' freedoms.  

The DOJ's position appears to be that while it will respect the SCOTUS rulings narrowly, it will freely engaged in any form of investigation not explicitly prohibited.  The Obama administration has gone to bat for the DOJ in court, arguing that when it comes to law enforcement, sometimes safety trumps the need for transparency and protection of civil liberties.

Source: ACLU

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By kedesh on 1/17/2013 4:04:10 PM , Rating: -1
When I was in the military, the local police would use gps tracking off phones to find people that went AWOL, then hand em over to our Captain.

Law Enforcement should have every tool at their disposal to keep us safe.

RE: -
By Omega215D on 1/17/2013 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
So we give 'em whatever they want as long as it keeps us "safe?"

Military is a different story but civilians?

RE: -
By Spuke on 1/17/2013 4:39:39 PM , Rating: 5
And you were military? Our rights and freedoms trump safety. Would you rather live in a dictatorship if that meant you were 100% safe? I'd rather die than give up my freedom. BTW, also ex-military.

RE: -
By TSS on 1/17/13, Rating: -1
RE: -
By Alexvrb on 1/18/2013 1:21:06 AM , Rating: 3
Freedom or death is stupid? So you're OK with being a slave? Wow. Comparing dying for your freedom with being killed for committing horrific acts? Wow again. Truly you are a prime example of our public education brainwashing programs in action. I must admit I am a little impressed at how well they're working.

RE: -
By Just Tom on 1/18/2013 8:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
A slave can overthrow his master. A dead man is just worm food.

RE: -
By Kurz on 1/18/2013 9:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
He is already dead.
He isn't the master of his own fate any longer.

RE: -
By MechanicalTechie on 1/17/2013 5:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
How incredibly naive of you..

I will never understand the mind set of people that unquestionably trust in governments. The US is experiencing rampant disintegration of its civil liberties and its people’s complacency like yourself that allows this to happen.

Are you unable to see what kind of future you are creating by supporting such tyrannical system?

RE: -
By rudolphna on 1/18/2013 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 1
And I don't understand the tinfoil hat wearers who unquestionably hate, despise, distrust a government. I mean seriously, it doesn't matter what it is they are doing, it's evil, and they are doing it so they can maintain a stranglehold over you and control every aspect of your life.

RE: -
By MechanicalTechie on 1/19/2013 6:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
So its a bad thing to question governments? Is that it? You are exactly the type of person that allows gov's to do anything they like.

What is the second amendment?
What do you think is the reasoning behind it?

C'mon man use your head, rather than being a good little worker drone!

RE: -
By foolsgambit11 on 1/17/2013 6:17:56 PM , Rating: 4
Random searches of people's homes would also help keep us safe. Would you advocate that? Or even better, we could install cameras throughout people's houses, with a direct feed to law enforcement, so there would be a record of any criminal activity - burglary, domestic violence, &c. would all be things of the past! And we know crime is double-plus ungood.

RE: -
By JediJeb on 1/18/2013 10:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
Law Enforcement should have every tool at their disposal to keep us safe.

They do, but it should still involve getting a warrant first. Tracking someone by GPS is not the problem and never has been, tracking them without taking the time to do it legally by getting a judge to issue a warrant first is the problem. With a warrant almost any means of surveillance is legal, but getting a judge to issue the warrant first is the check and balance to keep police operating within the law.

To me one of the most offensive things out there is law enforcement what does not obey the law themselves.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki