Home » blogs » KatieAndrews's blog

Judges Reject Cell-Phone Tracking

Submitted by KatieAndrews on 6 December, 2005 - 2:46pm. Security Blanket Blog

Judges Reject Cell-Phone Tracking - Law enforcement's attempts to keep tabs on suspects by following their mobile-phone signals face scattered resistance in court. Could this be the start of a judicial backlash? By Ryan Singel. [Security Blanket]

How much government accessibility into our lives is too much? Currently, litigation is taking place to allow federal investigators to track citizens using their cell phones, “in real time,” without agents having to show “probable cause.” Normally, investigators need to show probable cause to a judge if the tracking device they are using discloses facts pertaining to private places. This new law would change all that. Two cases, one near where I live, in Long Island and another in my home state of Texas have been launched regarding the use of cell phones as tracking devices.

Luckily, for the third time in recent months, Wired Magazine article reports, another federal judge has been hesitant at granting federal agents such open access to tracking. Basically, judges have concluded that as with normal searching or tracking of any suspect or citizen, investigators utilizing cell phones as tracking devices must “jump through the same hoops,” that are required for getting a regular search warrant. Countering the decision, assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Brown stated that “a cell phone user voluntarily transmits a signal to the cell phone company, and thereby ‘assumes the risk’ that the cell phone provider will reveal to law enforcement the cell-site information.” Personally, I think that while this is true, it does not make it acceptable for law enforcement to begin tracking individuals with reckless abandon, which is what they seem to want to do. As the laws stand right now, when investigators utilize cell phone towers as a means of tracking individuals, they are only given an approximation of a user’s location and movements in public areas. More often than not, this is perfectly sufficient and investigators are able to get all the information they need. Increasing the access would open up a whole new era of government surveillance reminiscent of Orwell’s “1984.”

Also, according to the article, investigators would like not only to be able to track individuals without seeking search warrants, but they are also petitioning to be able to retrieve the “dialing information of incoming and outgoing calls.” The magistrate in the Long Island case, James Orenstein, wrote in his decision, “"When the government seeks to turn a mobile telephone into a means for contemporaneously tracking the movements of its user, the delicately balanced compromise that Congress has forged between effective law enforcement and individual privacy requires a showing of probable cause." To me, this sums it all up perfectly. It’s about privacy and our right as Americans to enjoy it. In the information and digital age, it seems more and more difficult to maintain the high levels of privacy we once enjoyed. Now people can “google” us and find out our entire history. Hackers can get into our computer systems to find out all our personal information, and now investigators are trying to extended and push their already far-reaching limits, to gain information on people’s lives without having to ask first. It’s really as simple as that. How much privacy do we really have? The judiciary is becoming more and more invasive by the year. Do you feel like Big Brother is watching you?

» KatieAndrews's blog | login or register to post comments |

Tracking

Submitted by Jessica Thrailkill on 8 December, 2005 - 4:41pm.

As technology continues to be an increasingly significant part of our everyday lives, these kinds of debates are inevitable. I think when we utilize certain technologies, like cell phones, we must understand the risks involved and the possibilities of privacy invasion. However, I think it is more important that probable cause is found before any of this invasion occurs, and that investigators must go through the same process used in a normal search warrant. If probable cause is found, I think investigators should be allowed to view call histories of suspects and track their locations, whether the space is public or private. Obviously any information found that does not pertain to the specific investigation cannot be used against the suspect. These advances in technology are certainly beneficial to investigations, but the laws must be followed and probable cause is necessary.

» login or register to post comments

Tracking Cell Phones, then what?

Submitted by priddykg on 6 December, 2005 - 2:53pm.

This article goes right along with my comment regarding Homeland security concerns and the Patriot Acts. I like the idea that there are many ways to track someone that is a security concern, BUT you should have the ability to access this tracking system under reasonable circumstances. You should always have to have a reasonable cause and approved rights to be able to conduct such a search. The idea that you can be tracked in "real time" without even a warrant being granted for the search is an invasion of personal privacy rights. However, if you are suspected enough to have a warrant granted, then you have surrendered your rights to personal privacy in my opinion. The idea is good, but you have to have some sort of checks and balances system to prevent tracking from getting out of hand.

» login or register to post comments