Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Cellphone Tracking Powers On Request

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,709

    Cellphone Tracking Powers On Request

    Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request
    Secret Warrants Granted Without Probable Cause

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    By Ellen Nakashima
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, November 23, 2007; Page A01

    Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

    In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

    Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
    Who's Blogging
    ยป Links to this article

    Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.

    The issue is taking on greater relevance as wireless carriers are racing to offer sleek services that allow cellphone users to know with the touch of a button where their friends or families are. The companies are hoping to recoup investments they have made to meet a federal mandate to provide enhanced 911 (E911) location tracking. Sprint Nextel, for instance, boasts that its "loopt" service even sends an alert when a friend is near, "putting an end to missed connections in the mall, at the movies or around town."

    With Verizon's Chaperone service, parents can set up a "geofence" around, say, a few city blocks and receive an automatic text message if their child, holding the cellphone, travels outside that area.

    "Most people don't realize it, but they're carrying a tracking device in their pocket," said Kevin Bankston of the privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Cellphones can reveal very precise information about your location, and yet legal protections are very much up in the air."
    ad_icon

    In a stinging opinion this month, a federal judge in Texas denied a request by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent for data that would identify a drug trafficker's phone location by using the carrier's E911 tracking capability. E911 tracking systems read signals sent to satellites from a phone's Global Positioning System (GPS) chip or triangulated radio signals sent from phones to cell towers. Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley, of the Corpus Christi division of the Southern District of Texas, said the agent's affidavit failed to focus on "specifics necessary to establish probable cause, such as relevant dates, names and places."

    Owsley decided to publish his opinion, which explained that the agent failed to provide "sufficient specific information to support the assertion" that the phone was being used in "criminal" activity. Instead, Owsley wrote, the agent simply alleged that the subject trafficked in narcotics and used the phone to do so. The agent stated that the DEA had " 'identified' or 'determined' certain matters," Owsley wrote, but "these identifications, determinations or revelations are not facts, but simply conclusions by the agency."

    Instead of seeking warrants based on probable cause, some federal prosecutors are applying for orders based on a standard lower than probable cause derived from two statutes: the Stored Communications Act and the Pen Register Statute, according to judges and industry lawyers. The orders are typically issued by magistrate judges in U.S. district courts, who often handle applications for search warrants.

    In one case last month in a southwestern state, an FBI agent obtained precise location data with a court order based on the lower standard, citing "specific and articulable facts" showing reasonable grounds to believe the data are "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation," said Al Gidari, a partner at Perkins Coie in Seattle, who reviews data requests for carriers.

    Another magistrate judge, who has denied about a dozen such requests in the past six months, said some agents attach affidavits to their applications that merely assert that the evidence offered is "consistent with the probable cause standard" of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    "Law enforcement routinely now requests carriers to continuously 'ping' wireless devices of suspects to locate them when a call is not being made . . . so law enforcement can triangulate the precise location of a device and [seek] the location of all associates communicating with a target," wrote Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA -- the Wireless Association, in a July comment to the Federal Communications Commission. He said the "lack of a consistent legal standard for tracking a user's location has made it difficult for carriers to comply" with law enforcement agencies' demands.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    AuGmENTor Guest
    Stupid drug traffickers/ criminals. Either get a pre-paid (NEXT to untraceable) or don't carry a cell phone you dummies.

  3. #3
    dMole Guest

    FBI remote mikes


  4. #4
    beltman713 Guest
    The company I used to work for manufactured a cell phone pouch that blocked the cell phone's signals so that the person carrying it could not be tracked by it. Pretty cool stuff.

  5. #5
    AuGmENTor Guest
    Who did you work for Spy VS. Spy Inc? I would imagine that you also aren't getting any calls that way either.

  6. #6
    beltman713 Guest
    Believe it or not, I worked for a tent manufacturer. They got into making RF shielding tents and other shielding products for a while.

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Web-Tracking Plan Stirs Privacy Fears
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 08:23 AM
  2. Tracking Of Jet Reviewed
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2008, 06:53 PM
  3. Money-Tracking Leak Angers Cheney
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 11:43 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2006, 03:14 PM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-28-2005, 06:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •