backtop


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?

Redactions
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

RE: We are still lucky...
By Nfarce on 1/17/2013 11:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Word fail: meant to say... the way this nation is headed


RE: We are still lucky...
By madtruths on 1/18/2013 1:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
while i completely understand your point, i pointed out that only 3% of the population actually fought in the first revolution, with 10% supporting with supplies and what not, so even if the majority of the population becomes beiberized and snookified and all that crap pervades their thinking, we few patriots still have a chance. not to mention at this point at least 3% of our population have served in the military at one point with another .45% currently in service. and i believe that a majority of those serving would be for a proper revolution. as for ammohunt, what you describe for 99.999% is what i dream lol. peaceful back to basics. in my personal opinion, i think the feds should stick to national transportation and national defense, as i am pretty sure the states can handle everything else, and the feds, in a limited way, should make keep checks on the states interactions, making sure california and new york do not immediately revert to their current form, at least as far as the constitution is concerned. everything else is fair game as per the tenth amendment. lol that is all for now.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki