Federal Appeals Court Rules Gov't Can Track Your Location Without Warrant
July 31, 2013 2:47 PM
comment(s) - last by
(Source: MR Conservative)
Court ruling gives government a powerful new route to circumvent warrantless GPS-tracking ban
Numerous U.S. federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- as well as their state counterparts -- have made the argument that going through the due process of getting a warrant when tracking citizens
is too much work
. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) clearly thought otherwise,
U.S. v. Jones
; PDF) in January 2012 that
planting GPS trackers on citizens' vehicles
generally is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
I. Lies and Excuses Riddle Tracking Justification
But since that setback, the
opponents of due process
with other ways to track Americans. One tactic they've increasingly used is
warrantless data grabs on calling records
tower ping data grabs
, and even
physical data grabs off devices
. A source close to the
U.S. National Security Agency
(NSA) revealed that nearly
99 percent of phone-using Americans
are being tracked on a daily basis via this tactic.
On Tuesday, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
[PDF] that such warrantless cell phone data grabs are legal. This latest decision by the higher court invalidates
the prior ruling
Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith
, of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
, which decided in November 2011 that cell phone location data warrantless seizures were unconstitutional under the fourth amendment. (
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
earlier this month
[PDF] a similar opinion.)
The 5th Circuit -- which sets the precedent for Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas -- argued that the warrantless tracking is okay because the cell phone carriers are the ones doing it, not the government. They argue that stored location data is a "business record" and thus a person's location is not Constitutionally protected from search and seizure after it's been collected.
The government says you have no privacy protections against cell phone tracking under the constitution [Image Source: MR Conservative]
… cell site information is clearly a business record. The cell service provider collects and stores historical cell site data for its own business purposes, perhaps to monitor or optimize service on its network or to accurately bill its customers for the segments of its network that they use. The Government does not require service providers to record this information or store it. The providers control what they record and how long these records are retained.
But that ruling is entirely ignorant of the fact that the federal government
telecommunications companies to collect data records on their customers, and even participates in that collection.
Mandate Private Companies Track You
A November 2001
[PDF] directed at Telstra Corp., Ltd. (
) and its REACH Networks subsidiary, signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G Malcolm and
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) general Counsel Larry R. Parkinson reveals:
Article 2.1 (b) of the document
[A carrier must be able to provide...]
Article 2.3, clauses (d) and (e)
Similar orders have reportedly targeted AT&T
, Inc. (
) and Verizon Communications, Inc. (
), companies that own the majority of the fiber optic cable that underpins all major U.S. cellular networks.
The PATRIOT Act enabled massive erosions to due process. [Image Source: Flickr]
mostly trace back to the "business records" (
50 U.S.C. § 1861
) section of the 2001 PATRIOT Act, which removed the need to for the feds to get warrants when seizing certain kinds of records.
III. Appellate Courts: 2-to-1 in Favor of Warrantless Tracking
So it sounds like the 5th Circuit's assertion that "the providers control what they record and how long these records are retained" isn’t accurate. They do, however, follow it with a true statement -- "Their use of their phones, moreover, is entirely voluntary . . . . The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone."
In other words,
if you don't want your privacy rights trampled on, don't use a phone
. That perspective is nearly identical to
a second ruling
[PDF] by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
-- which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. That ruling came down in August 2012.
So far the only ruling at the higher appellate level that's come close to rejecting this warrantless, ubiquitous monitoring of citizens is
a Dec. 2010 opinion
[PDF] from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
-- which covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In that ruling, Chief Judge Theodore McKee wrote that under The Stored Communications Act (an outdated law that hasn't changed meaningfully since its passage in 1986, despite advances in cell phone technology) judges had the responsibility to decide individually for each case whether a request was covered under the fourth amendment and hence required the warrant.
While that ruling left the door open for a slightly faster justice-granted order, it was still blasted by the Obama administration and other proponents of wiping out Constitutional protections.
IV. Eroding the Constitution
As a result of these rulings, if you live in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, the government can spy on your location without warrant via phone records, but if you live in certain east coast states you may need a warrant. In other jurisdictions (e.g. mountain states, the southwest, and the west coast) the situation remains largely untested.
The ACLU and EFF are upset about the Orwellian tracking of law abiding citizens.
The American Civil Liberties Union
the 5th Circuit ruling, writing:
This ruling is troubling because, as we and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
, only a warrant standard fully protects Americans' privacy interests in their locations and movements over time. Cell phone companies store records on where each of us have been, often stretching back for years. That location information is sensitive and can reveal a great deal—what doctors people visit, where they spend the night, who their friends are, and where they worship. Given the sensitivity of these facts, law enforcement agents should have to demonstrate to a judge that they have a good reason to believe that they will turn up evidence of wrongdoing before gaining access to information that can paint a detailed picture of where a person has been over time.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
More generally the "third party doctrine" -- the idea you have no expectation of privacy in information turned over to third parties -- is dangerously eroding our Fourth Amendment protection at a time when cell phone companies and Internet service providers are stockpiling extensive personal information about all of us. Last year, Justice Sotomayor of the U.S. Supreme Court sounded the alarm in her concurring opinion in
United States v. Jones
writing the doctrine was "ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks."
But it looks like civil liberty advocates are for now on the losing side of a battle against the Obama administration and its federal/state allies who look to erode Constitutional privacy protections.
As in the
growing issue of license plate scanning
to track citizens (also
funded by and legally endorsed by the Obama administration
), U.S. citizens should simply assume
"Big Brother" is watching them
at all times.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
7/31/2013 3:57:10 PM
I'm sorry americans but you are fucked!
RE: You are
7/31/2013 4:18:22 PM
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
ACLU Sues Over Feds Spending up to $1.4B to Monitor Millions of Americans
July 19, 2013, 2:24 PM
Source: Don't Worry, NSA Spies on "99 Percent" of Americans' Locations, Call Records
June 14, 2013, 3:57 PM
IRS Documents Citizens Have "No Privacy Expectation" With Email
April 11, 2013, 3:01 PM
Obama's DOJ Tries to Sneak Around Supreme Court GPS Tracking Ruling, ACLU Upset
January 17, 2013, 2:08 PM
Judge to Police: Feel Free to Invade Citizens' Property Without Warrant, Plant Cameras
November 2, 2012, 3:01 PM
Samsung Hopes to Launch Budget Tizen Device in India by November
September 19, 2014, 5:25 PM
Verizon Wireless Wi-Fi Calling Coming Next Year, Company Sees No Rush to Offer Feature
September 19, 2014, 11:45 AM
Quick Note: Toshiba to Restructure PC Business, Cut 900 Jobs Worldwide
September 18, 2014, 1:40 PM
Samsung Galaxy Note 4 U.S. Pre-orders Start Sept 19, Launches Oct 14
September 18, 2014, 10:15 AM
Amazon Releases New and Refreshed Kindle Fire Tablets, Announces Fire OS 4
September 17, 2014, 10:23 PM
Apple Launches iOS 8 for iPads, iPhones
September 17, 2014, 1:54 PM
Most Popular Articles
HTC Preps Nexus 9 With Nvidia K1 64-Bit "Denver" SoC, Android L Onboard
September 10, 2014, 10:21 PM
Quick Note: Buy an Xbox One Sept 7-13, Get a Free Game
September 4, 2014, 10:42 AM
Apple Announces Its Smartwatch: The $349 Apple Watch
September 9, 2014, 2:09 PM
Dell Announces "World's Thinnest" Tablet: The Venue 8 7000 Series
September 11, 2014, 8:51 AM
T-Mobile Launches Un-carrier 7.0, Beefs Up Wi-Fi Calling
September 11, 2014, 2:56 PM
Latest Blog Posts
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information