Court/Obama Agree: Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking is OK

[Kennedy 0]

Court allows warrantless cell location tracking

Quote

The FBI and other police agencies don't need a search warrant to track the locations of Americans' cell phones, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday in a precedent-setting decision.

In the first decision of its kind, a Philadelphia appeals court agreed with the Obama administration that no search warrant--signed by a judge based on a belief that there was probable cause to suspect criminal activity--was necessary for police to obtain logs showing where a cell phone user had traveled.

A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit said (PDF) tracking cell phones "does not require the traditional probable-cause determination" enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits government agencies from conducting "unreasonable" searches. The court's decision, however, was focused on which federal privacy statutes apply.

(snip)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Where is the uproar from the anti-Patriot Act liberals?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Where is the uproar from the anti-Patriot Act liberals?

Probably the same place that your praise for Obama is.

[Beachbum 0]

uproar ... uproar ... uproar ... UPROAR!!!!

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[wmw999 2,589]

Not sure about uproar, but it's sliding down a fine line. It's data that's currently publicly accessible I believe. Just reinforces my thoughts about the decreasing availability of privacy.

Very slightly different from the gov't activley putting a tracker on someone's car (which is also OK without a search warrant, I believe). But it all gives me an uncomfortable feeling.

The thing is -- you KNOW that it's being done anyway. This just makes it legal, rather than just done.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not sure about uproar, but it's sliding down a fine line. It's data that's currently publicly accessible I believe. Just reinforces my thoughts about the decreasing availability of privacy.

Very slightly different from the gov't activley putting a tracker on someone's car (which is also OK without a search warrant, I believe). But it all gives me an uncomfortable feeling.

The thing is -- you KNOW that it's being done anyway. This just makes it legal, rather than just done.

Wendy P.

The point is the outcry levels based on which party is in control of it

It is no different today than when Bush was in office then.
Do we need to pull up the posts about this exact topic from back then and compare them to the relative defining silence be heard lately?

Why does being wrong or right change with party control of the WH?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Where is the uproar from the anti-Patriot Act liberals?

I TOLD YOU SO














And I think its GOAT FUCK STUPID....


it was GOAT FUCK STUPID then when it was implimented by Ashcroft et al... when all of you "conservatives" were handing out the IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US>>>> YOU ARE AGAINST US mantra... ot my personal favorite.... IF YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR


I TOLD YOU SO

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Not sure about uproar, but it's sliding down a fine line. It's data that's currently publicly accessible I believe. Just reinforces my thoughts about the decreasing availability of privacy.

Very slightly different from the gov't activley putting a tracker on someone's car (which is also OK without a search warrant, I believe). But it all gives me an uncomfortable feeling.

The thing is -- you KNOW that it's being done anyway. This just makes it legal, rather than just done.

Wendy P.

Publicly accessible?

Sweet - I'll just srat tracking your movements then.

What do you mean i CAN'T - I thought they were publicly accessible!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,589]

You can. Stalkers and paparazzi do it all the time. It's only illegal once someone submits a complaint.

Note that I think it's a fine line we're sliding down, and I don't really like the progress. That post you're quoting isn't exactly a rousing endorsement.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[champu 1]

Quote

Just reinforces my thoughts about the decreasing availability of privacy.

Indeed. The definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" seems to be indexed to technological inflation, so-to-speak.

[BIGUN 1,488]

When the Patriot Act first came out, an Attorney friend of mine and I went out to dinner and read it word for word. When we were done and had some vino, she and I were both just stunned at how unconstitutional the whole document was. We can sit here and debate the lack of privacy and by which party, but the fact of the matter is... our right to privacy is quickly eroding each day. It matters not which side of the aisle took the first peanut out of the bowl; what matters is that once the government takes that first peanut, they'll keep taking them one peanut at a time until they get the whole bowl and neither party is going to give any of those peanuts back.

I'm not sure about by fellow dz.commers, but this one probably writes almost as many emails to my Congressional and Senatorial representatives as I do posts on here and hope that everyone here writes theirs at least once a month. They may not listen, but they know there's a voice.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

When the Patriot Act first came out, an Attorney friend of mine and I went out to dinner and read it word for word. When we were done and had some vino, she and I were both just stunned at how unconstitutional the whole document was. We can sit here and debate the lack of privacy and by which party, but the fact of the matter is... our right to privacy is quickly eroding each day. It matters not which side of the aisle took the first peanut out of the bowl; what matters is that once the government takes that first peanut, they'll keep taking them one peanut at a time until they get the whole bowl and neither party is going to give any of those peanuts back.

I'm not sure about by fellow dz.commers, but this one probably writes almost as many emails to my Congressional and Senatorial representatives as I do posts on here and hope that everyone here writes theirs at least once a month. They may not listen, but they know there's a voice.

The second amendmend is there to ensure government cannot do that!!!!

[DanG 1]

Quote

The second amendmend is there to ensure government cannot do that!!!!

The 2nd is a last ditch effort if all else fails. There are a lot more protections built into the system before you get to armed insurrection.

I completely agree with Bigun. You can't eat just one peanut. I totally dissagree with this ruling, and hope large portions of the Patriot Act eventually get overturned.

- Dan G

[Kennedy 0]

Five boxes:
soap box
mail box
ballot box
jury box
ammo box

Use the other four first, and maybe you won't need the last one to affect policy or protect liberty.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You can. Stalkers and paparazzi do it all the time. It's only illegal once someone submits a complaint.

Witness this story:
Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

Do we want the government doing this to everyone?
I think not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I totally dissagree with this ruling...

Hopefully, another Federal judge in a different district will rule it illegal. Then the issue will be ripe for review by the Supreme Court. All that will take years, of course, and in the meantime, governments are free to track anyone they wish for any reason at all!

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Hopefully, another Federal judge in a different district will rule it illegal.

I sure hope so, too. But I hope that a justification can be found in the Constitution and precedent, because otherwise it'd be legislating from the bench, right?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

I'm hoping this issue will be addressed when the supreme court addresses the gps installed on a car issue,which already has appellate decisions that contradict each other. The gps is is more invasive because they have to attach it to your car, but the phone is more invasive because most folks take their phones a lot more places than their vehicles. I'm against both actions being legal without a warrant but am not sure how the court will split over this.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I sure hope so, too. But I hope that a justification can be found in the Constitution and precedent, because otherwise it'd be legislating from the bench, right?

It all comes down to the definition of "seizure" and how invasive the black robes think constant tracking is. All fourth amendmet issues are a matter of how signifcant the law enforcement intrusion is (including into areas LEOs can't follow otherwise). From use of force to searches to tracking and observation, it all gets balanced out against the right to be secure and free. Talking needs less than detaining needs less than frisking needs less than a search or arrest. Same thing with observation. The Kelo v New London case said officers couldn't use infrared imaging (possibly indicative of drug operations) to obtain warrants. But now some areas let you track folks anywhere they go without a warrant.

I don't think either decision would be legislating from the bench as both arguments have some relation to established written law and legal precident, unlike say creating the "right to privacy and have medical procedures" out of thin air. I do hope they choose to require warrants, but we'll see.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Where is the uproar from the anti-Patriot Act liberals?

Right here. I think it stinks.

Quote

Hopefully, another Federal judge in a different district will rule it illegal. Then the issue will be ripe for review by the Supreme Court.

Technically, all that has to be done is for this ruling to be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and then after that it's up to the SC to decide whether to take the case. But you're quite correct: conflicting rulings from judges of different districts do increase the chance that the SC will take the case.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm hoping this issue will be addressed when the supreme court addresses the gps installed on a car issue,which already has appellate decisions that contradict each other. The gps is is more invasive because they have to attach it to your car, but the phone is more invasive because most folks take their phones a lot more places than their vehicles. I'm against both actions being legal without a warrant but am not sure how the court will split over this.

If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds on the SC upholding the ruling in favor of the govt by a 5-4 decision.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm thinking anywhere from 5-4 against to 6-3 in favor of allowing it (5-4 in favor being middle ground). I think it's unfortunate, but I think you're right. I'm going to hope for a 5-4 against, thereby requiring a warrant.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When the Patriot Act first came out, an Attorney friend of mine and I went out to dinner and read it word for word. When we were done and had some vino, she and I were both just stunned at how unconstitutional the whole document was. We can sit here and debate the lack of privacy and by which party, but the fact of the matter is... our right to privacy is quickly eroding each day. It matters not which side of the aisle took the first peanut out of the bowl; what matters is that once the government takes that first peanut, they'll keep taking them one peanut at a time until they get the whole bowl and neither party is going to give any of those peanuts back.

I'm not sure about by fellow dz.commers, but this one probably writes almost as many emails to my Congressional and Senatorial representatives as I do posts on here and hope that everyone here writes theirs at least once a month. They may not listen, but they know there's a voice.

Amen Brother

I do write mine.... quite frequently.