Appeals judge on Obama's warrantless cellphone tracking: Do you want us to be like Iran?

[chasmj]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61B43F20100212

Justice Department appeals court ban on cell-phone tracking
Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA

A Justice Department attorney urged a federal appeals court to overturn lower court rulings denying it the right to seek information from communications companies about the call activity of specific numbers that authorities believe are associated with criminal activity. But civil rights lawyers argued that providing information such as dates, times and call duration, and which cell towers the calls used, would be an invasion of privacy and a violation of constitutional protections against unjustified arrest. Attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology said the government should have to obtain a warrant to track an individual via a cell phone and show probable cause that the information would provide evidence of a crime.

In 2008, the government asked for court permission to use cell phones for tracking without showing probable cause. The request was denied by a magistrate judge, whose decision was upheld by a district court. The government is appealing the lower court decisions before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which heard oral arguments on Friday. The government is not seeking to monitor the content of cell phone conversations, said Mark Eckenwiler, an attorney for the Justice Department, but wants information on call activity to assist law-enforcement as it tracks suspected criminals...

In February 2008, the government asked a lower court's permission to obtain from Sprint Spectrum the connection and cell-site information associated with a specific cell phone, on the grounds that it was relevant to an investigation on narcotics trafficking. Kevin Bankston, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that cell tower data can allow officials to determine a cell phone user's location to within a tenth of a mile, and that could violate constitutional rights protecting a person from unreasonable seizure. "We think the data in this case is accurate enough to implicate the Fourth Amendment," he said.

Judge Dolores Sloviter, one of a three-judge panel, told Eckenwiler the government's case raised questions about the government's rights to track individuals. "There are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been," she said, citing Iran as a government that monitors political meetings. "Wouldn't the government find it useful if it could get that information without showing probable cause? Don't we have to be concerned about that?"...

------------------------------------------------

Now, when (not if) Obama takes this to the Supreme Court, he'll win 5-4. Guaranteed.

[vegiegals]

1. Obama continuing Bush snooping on citizens. It is WRONG.

[Echo In Light]

2. K&R

[ProSense]

3. Your title is misleading, this is not Obama's policy.

This is an ongoing case.

<...>

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology will ask the court to require that the government at least show probable cause before it can track your whereabouts.

Although most people don't realize it, cell phones double as tracking devices. Newer phones contain GPS chips, the same technology that allows car navigation systems to know where you are and give directions ("Turn right now"). But even older phones that don't have chips can be tracked by knowing the location of the cell towers they use to connect to a network.

There's no question that cell phones and cell-phone records can be useful for police officers who need to track the movements of those they believe to be breaking the law. And it is important for law enforcement agents to have the tools they need to stop crimes. However, it is just as important to make sure such tools are used responsibly, in a manner that safeguards our personal privacy.

But documents obtained by the ACLU and the EFF as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that the government takes advantage of this technology to track cell phones as extensively as possible — often without first obtaining warrants — except in states where courts step in to establish boundaries.

In fact, this issue gained national attention during last year's gubernatorial race in New Jersey. Documents turned over in our lawsuit revealed that the U.S. Attorney's Office — under Chris Christie, now the governor — was tracking cell phones without probable cause, in violation of a Justice Department recommendation.

link

[chasmj]

5. If Obama doesn't want warrantless tracking, then why is he fighting for it?

What's so hard about calling a judge for a warrant?

[QC]

4. I was just accused of being a Sarah Palin teabagger for objecting to this.

Of course, that was over in GD: P, where it is the usual response to anyone who fails to clap hard enough.

[AndyA]

6. Thanks, Obama, for continuing Bush's invasive and UNCONSTITUTIONAL policies.

I expected you to know better, and I suspect that you do, which makes it even worse for you to continue down the same path as Bush.

At least with Bush, everyone knew he was an idiot, and others were doing all the real work.

This isn't change. It's more of the same.