Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones

home reviews news downloads cnet tv log in join CNET
On GameSpot: Next-gen DS, Xbox tech contracts set?
Latest News CNET River Webware Crave Business Tech Green Tech Wireless Security Photos More
Home News Politics and Law
February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST
Feds push for tracking cell phones

by Declan McCullagh Font size Print E-mail Share 239 comments
1102 retweet Share
Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that
had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded
at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two
phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony
Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones
thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and Most Popular
federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On
Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral Feds push for tracking cell phones
arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating
wireless devices. FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
Google's social side hopes to catch some Buzz

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking
is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" Google Buzz: Privacy nightmare
in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of
Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company Boeing's next-gen 747 takes first flight
reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice
Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans'
privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. Feds push for tracking cell phones
Justice Department is expected

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic
to tell federal appeals court, in
Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that first case of its kind, that no
everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth warrant is required to obtain
Amendment." previous location data.
Not long ago, the concept of tracking cell phones would have been the stuff of spy movies. In 1998's "Enemy of the
Google eyes ultrafast broadband to the home
State," Gene Hackman warned that the National Security Agency has "been in bed with the entire
telecommunications industry since the '40s--they've infected everything." After a decade of appearances in "24" What can be done with network
and "Live Free or Die Hard," location-tracking has become such a trope that it was satirized in a scene with Seth speeds of a gigabit per
Rogen from "Pineapple Express" (2008). second? Google wants to find
out through a test network that
Once a Hollywood plot, now 'commonplace' will reach up to a half million
people.
Whether state and federal police have been paying attention to Hollywood, or whether it was the other way around,
cell phone tracking has become a regular feature in criminal investigations. It comes in two forms: police
obtaining retrospective data kept by mobile providers for their own billing purposes that may not be very detailed,
or prospective data that reveals the minute-by-minute location of a handset or mobile device.
About Politics and Law
Obtaining location details is now "commonplace," says Al Gidari, a partner in the Seattle offices of Perkins Coie
who represents wireless carriers. "It's in every pen register order these days." News at the intersection of technology, politics, and
law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship
Gidari says that the Third Circuit case could have a significant impact on police investigations within the court's to tech policy.
jurisdiction, namely Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it could be persuasive beyond those states. But, he
cautions, "if the privacy groups win, the case won't be over. It will certainly be appealed." Subscribe via RSS
Click this link to view as XML.
CNET was the first to report on prospective tracking in a 2005 news article. In a subsequent Arizona case, agents Add this feed to your online news reader
from the Drug Enforcement Administration tracked a tractor trailer with a drug shipment through a GPS-equipped
Nextel phone owned by the suspect. Texas DEA agents have used cell site information in real time to locate a
Chrysler 300M driving from Rio Grande City to a ranch about 50 miles away. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile logs
showing the location of mobile phones at the time calls became evidence in a Los Angeles murder trial.
Politics and Law topics
And a mobile phone's fleeting connection with a remote cell tower operated by Edge Wireless is what led
searchers to the family of the late James Kim, a CNET employee who died in the Oregon wilderness in 2006 after Antitrust Privacy
leaving a snowbound car to seek help. Censorship Regulation
Corruption Stupidity
The way tracking works is simple: mobile phones are miniature radio
transmitters and receivers. A cellular tower knows the general direction of "This is a critical question Elections Taxes
a mobile phone (many cell sites have three antennas pointing in different for privacy in the 21st Lessons in economics intellectual property
directions), and if the phone is talking to multiple towers, triangulation century. If the courts do
yields a rough location fix. With this method, accuracy depends in part on side with the government,
the density of cell sites. that means that
everywhere we go, in the
The Federal Communications Commission's "Enhanced 911" (E911) real world and online, will
requirements allowed rough estimates to be transformed into precise be an open book to the
coordinates. Wireless carriers using CDMA networks, such as Verizon government unprotected
Wireless and Sprint Nextel, tend to use embedded GPS technology to fulfill by the Fourth
E911 requirements. AT&T and T-Mobile comply with E911 regulations
Amendment."
using network-based technology that computes a phone's location using --Kevin Bankston, attorney,
signal analysis and triangulation between towers. Electronic Frontier Foundation
T-Mobile, for instance, uses a GSM technology called Uplink Time Difference of Arrival, or U-TDOA, which
calculates a position based on precisely how long it takes signals to reach towers. A company called
TruePosition, which provides U-TDOA services to T-Mobile, boasts of "accuracy to under 50 meters" that's
available "for start-of-call, midcall, or when idle."
A 2008 court order to T-Mobile in a criminal investigation of a marriage fraud scheme, which was originally
sealed and later made public, says: "T-Mobile shall disclose at such intervals and times as directed by (the
Department of Homeland Security), latitude and longitude data that establishes the approximate positions of the
Subject Wireless Telephone, by unobtrusively initiating a signal on its network that will enable it to determine the
locations of the Subject Wireless Telephone."
'No reasonable expectation of privacy'

In the case that's before the Third Circuit on Friday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or
ATF, said it needed historical (meaning stored, not future) phone location information because a set of suspects
"use their wireless telephones to arrange meetings and transactions in furtherance of their drug trafficking
activities."
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan in Pennsylvania denied the Justice Department's attempt to obtain stored
location data without a search warrant; prosecutors had invoked a different legal procedure. Lenihan's ruling, in
effect, would require police to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause--a more privacy-protective
standard.
Lenihan's opinion (PDF)--which, in an unusual show of solidarity, was signed by four other magistrate judges--
noted that location information can reveal sensitive information such as health treatments, financial difficulties,
marital counseling, and extra-marital affairs.
In its appeal to the Third Circuit, the Justice Department claims that Lenihan's opinion "contains, and relies upon,
numerous errors" and should be overruled. In addition to a search warrant not being necessary, prosecutors said,
because location "records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the
past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest."
The Obama administration is not alone in making this argument. U.S. District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton
appointee in New York, wrote in a 2009 opinion that a defendant in a drug trafficking case, Jose Navas, "did not
have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone" location. That's because Navas only used the cell phone
"on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York" and "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's
location private, he simply could have turned it off."
(Most cases have involved the ground rules for tracking cell phone users prospectively, and judges have
disagreed over what legal rules apply. Only a minority has sided with the Justice Department, however.)
Cellular providers tend not to retain moment-by-moment logs of when each mobile device contacts the tower, in
part because there's no business reason to store the data, and in part because the storage costs would be
prohibitive. They do, however, keep records of what tower is in use when a call is initiated or answered--and those
records are generally stored for six months to a year, depending on the company.
Verizon Wireless keeps "phone records including cell site location for 12 months," Drew Arena, Verizon's vice
president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance, said at a federal task force meeting
in Washington, D.C. last week. Arena said the company keeps "phone bills without cell site location for seven
years," and stores SMS text messages for only a very brief time.
Gidari, the Seattle attorney, said that wireless carriers have recently extended how long they store this information.
"Prior to a year or two ago when location-based services became more common, if it were 30 days it would be
surprising," he said.
The ACLU, EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of San Francisco law professor Susan
Freiwald argue that the wording of the federal privacy law in question allows judges to require the level of proof
required for a search warrant "before authorizing the disclosure of particularly novel or invasive types of
information." In addition, they say, Americans do not "knowingly expose their location information and thereby
surrender Fourth Amendment protection whenever they turn on or use their cell phones."
"The biggest issue at stake is whether or not courts are going to accept the government's minimal view of what is
protected by the Fourth Amendment," says EFF's Bankston. "The government is arguing that based on precedents
from the 1970s, any record held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is not protected by
the Fourth Amendment."
Update 10:37 a.m. PT: A source inside the U.S. Attorney's Office for the northern district of Texas, which
prosecuted the Scarecrow Bandits mentioned in the above article, tells me that this was the first and the only time
that the FBI has used the location-data-mining technique to nab bank robbers. It's also worth noting that the
leader of this gang, Corey Duffey, was sentenced last month to 354 years (not months, but years) in prison.
Another member is facing 140 years in prison.
Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who
has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular
feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his
CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at
declan@cbsnews.com.
Topics: Privacy, Regulation

Tags: Fourth Amendment, surveillance, cell phone tracking, FBI
Share: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Facebook Twitter
Recent posts from Politics and Law Related

Gripes over Google Books go technical Does the Fourth Amendment cover 'the cloud'?
eBay loses another suit over Louis Vuitton brand Police survey provides glimpse of Net-surveillance
Feds push for tracking cell phones figures
What kind of virus has Fiorina's ad spread? Blogs, YouTube prompt campaign finance ruling
FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited Police want backdoor to Web users' private data
DOJ not pleased with latest Google Book agreement FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
Lawmakers grill execs over Comcast-NBC deal Verizon looks for more revenue in wireless data
U.S. House passes cybersecurity research bill New year, new policy push for universal broadband
Week in review: Of Internet privacy and police
ADD A COMMENT (Log in or register)
Showing 1 of 8 pages (239 Comments)

1 2 3 4 ... 8 next
by Kasar99 February 11, 2010 4:38 AM PST

That sounds like the same language used for photographs, no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you go to this
level, then tracking websites should be available to the public. Real-time tracking of celebrity cell phones would be
a new web service industry. They'd have automatic paparazzi and stalker subscribers. When do I get to launch my
new site?
Like this Reply to this comment

6 people like this comment
by szettervall February 11, 2010 7:56 AM PST

Every time someone tells you they need something in order to make you more safe, get ready,
you are about to lose some freedom.
Like this
by mike_ekim February 11, 2010 10:25 AM PST

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
If the electronic data of our phones' locations are not private, then why should music be so
controlled? Why can someone share with other people my wearabouts, but I can't share a song
that someone wanted to be made public?
Like this
by mireyaayala February 11, 2010 10:50 AM PST

Big Brutha Government is watching you. How's that for privacy? It makes those liberals miss the
Patriot Act, huh?
Something tells me that liberals won't complain too loudly about this, though.
Like this
by flhu1 February 11, 2010 12:19 PM PST

"It makes those liberals miss the Patriot Act, huh?"
Sorry, no one misses the Patriot Act. It is still in effect.
Like this
by dennisheadley February 11, 2010 3:18 PM PST

Well if that is the way Obama feels about this, then his open government website should have a
personal profile page on every member of his administration and congress with a Google
Latatude badge showing their location at all times.
Like this
by commsoft February 11, 2010 4:10 PM PST

@mireyaayala - Right on. If Obama is doing it, it doesn't matter if it's worse than anything the
Bush administration did under the Patriot Act or otherwise, it must be ok.
Obama-nuts - the Obama administration thinks it should be able to track where you are at all
times without a warrant. How's that for non-intrusive government and protecting our rights?
Sounds like something they would have done in the Soviet Union. Oh, wait, that's right, that's the
model he's shooting for...
Like this
by n3td3v February 11, 2010 4:56 AM PST

Thankfully I lost my cell phone one night and decided not to replace it. I haven't looked back since.

by Seaspray0 February 11, 2010 7:07 AM PST

And I was looking forward to an expose on how the government could track the location of my car
keys by resonating them with a harmonic frequency.
Like this
1 person likes this comment
by szettervall February 11, 2010 7:44 AM PST

Feds can already track most vehicles on the road in the US by the RFIDs required on all vehicles
since 2007 for TPMS.
Like this
by Kacela February 11, 2010 5:18 AM PST

I used to think "I'm not doing anything wrong, so what difference does it make if they watch / eavesdrop / spy / track
me"; screw that line of thinking - the government has absolutely no business in our business, no matter how
much they try to scare us into thinking that it will make us feel safer.
The government only has power over us if we let them. Stop letting them pull this crap. Wake up, people - silence
is consent. I DO NOT CONSENT.

by darkstar32170 February 11, 2010 10:02 AM PST

I find it ironic that the liberal Obama administration is arguing FOR these intrusions after all the
noise they made about the changes made to our rights (without constitutional amendment) after
9/11. Now that they're in power they want the same capabilities. Shows you that both parties are
essentially the same - they just have a different viewpoint when they're not in power.
Wait till some high tech crook (or even someone in the government - I guess that's the same
really) figures out how use such technology to show his location as being somewhere else
while he commits his crime - and I don't mean by giving someone else his phone. I mean by
actually placing a call to show he's somewhere else. It's like photographic evidence. You can't
really consider it to be reliable anymore.
Like this
by skeerotus February 11, 2010 10:09 AM PST

Today, what you're doing may be perfectly legal (like owning a gun or expressing certain political
views), but you have no idea what rights are targeted for "special attention" by a government very
fearful of the sovereign citizen. "Anything you say (or do, or believe, or participate in...) can and will
be used against you."
Like this
by makardhwaj February 11, 2010 12:22 PM PST

This has nothing to do with Liberal/Conservative Democrat/Republican. Every government
craves more power for reasons they believe are well intentioned- or at least let us hope they
believe this. But it all leads to where history has shown us thousand times over it leads to. I'm
personally with Kacela.. I do not consent. Unless the Feds can guarantee that their ever-
increasing powers will never be abused (which no one can do unless we lobotomized all of
them), let me keep my own privacy...
Like this
by kat3839 February 11, 2010 1:19 PM PST

'silence' would drive 'them' crazy!
Like this
by Johnnie789 February 11, 2010 3:18 PM PST

I DO NOT CONSENT EITHER
Like this
by steel36 February 11, 2010 5:20 AM PST

Hey, I'm all for it. Who cares if they can track where we were? Do you know how many crimes that could solve, and
more importantly, hopefully prevent?
I'd support everyone having implanted gps chips. How many lives would that save? everyone would know that you
could track where an incident happened and see who was there. no more kidnapping, murders, etc.
I think we're all a little too afraid of Big Brother. Name one thing about this that is "dangerous".


"I'd support everyone having implanted gps chips."
DNA sampling is bad enough, but GPS chip tracking embedded under the skin?
Please tell me you're smoking crack?
If they introduced that here in UK i'd move overseas, it would be the final straw that would cause
a mass exudous of people to leave the country.
There is no way I would allow myself and my family to be robotically controlled by the
government.
Like this
by baboa February 11, 2010 5:57 AM PST

A little too afraid of Big Brother? The fourth amendment exists for a reason: to protect us from
unreasonable search and seizure. What is the problem if law enforcement has to take an "extra"
step and obtain a search warrant? They present their evidence to a judge who then decides if the
evidence is enough to issue a warrant. It is called checks and balances. It has been used for
centuries... and while not perfect, it is the best we have. And, I don't buy the argument that just
because we can do something, means that we should.
If you've never read 1984 I suggest that you do. Who's afraid of Big Brother? I am. You should be
too. Once you give away any of your freedoms... you are not ever going to get them back. For
God's sake... wake up.
Like this

It is nothing to do with being afraid, more to do with being ridiculously over the top and
unnecessary.
The government is being ridiculous with their unmeasured response to the perceived threat that
criminals and terrorists pose to society.
It's over the top unmeasured and unnecessary.
We need a reality check on actual threat and potential threat.
It's way over the top.
Like this
by protagonistic February 11, 2010 7:57 AM PST

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me ?

and by that time no one was left to speak up."
This was written about a people with the same attitude you have. For such a short post you have
said so many idiotic things I don't know where to start. Perhaps I will just leave it at suggesting
you read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
Like this
by sittingincomputerclass February 11, 2010 8:15 AM PST

I don't think it's a bad idea, per say. But there would have to be certain restrictions put in place,
like the device legally can't be used to track a person unless they've been officially reported
missing or the authorities have just cause to accuse someone of a crime and that person can't
be found. I absolutely agree that "Big Brother" is a little too real for some of us.
Oh, and @protagonistic: Nobody's "coming for" anyone unless, as I said, they've been kidnapped
or involved in a crime. What if someone wanted to leave the country - legally - and just not let
anyone know on purpose? Then they could just tell the authorities in charge of tracking missing
individuals and let them know nothing's wrong. Again, restrictions would need to be put in place.
But overall, nothing is harmful about this idea. I think you and n3td3v both need to take some
clozapine and see if the big, bad Feds are still hiding under your beds.
Really, n3t? "DNA sampling is bad"? Are you planning on committing a murder and objecting to
your DNA being in a system so that you can be profiled and caught? You've got issues.
Like this

In UK they've started taking everyone's DNA if you are arrested, even if not charged with anything,
DNA taken. They are building a huge DNA database of everyone they can.
Like this
by leprechaun224 February 11, 2010 9:18 AM PST

Can you spell "NAZI Germany"?
Like this
by Pete Bardo February 11, 2010 9:38 AM PST

@sittingincomputerclass, It's about freedom, not whether I'm planning something illegal. We are
either a free nation or we are not. There is no middle ground. The government--all three
branches--has been following this trend for quite some time. No new media carries the
protections we have been guaranteed. The courts have ruled that we have no reasonable
expectation of privacy when we use a cell phone, when we email, when we use a cordless
phone in our own homes. If you don't enjoy the freedom you have in this country, maybe you
should look at Iran...
Like this
by afounder1865 February 11, 2010 9:48 AM PST

There is an old quote that I may not recall word for word, but the gist is:
"Those that would surrender liberty for security deserve neither..."
I will give you a very good example of how this is wrong... Recently the witch in charge of
Homeland Security approved of a report that named returning veterans as potential terrorist
recruitment threats. With this, the government can decide to track their movements to determine
other potential threats by mere proximity. What is to stop them? No warrant needed. Suddnely
because you were in the same Starbucks for more than 5 minutes with an Iraq War Veteran you
are on a 'list'. How would you know?
Or an NRA member? or a Catholic Right-to-Life activist? Are the lights coming on yet?
Like this
by Pat_in_NH February 11, 2010 9:56 AM PST

?Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve,
either one.? Ben Franklin
If it just saves 1 life it will be worth it
Like this
See more comment replies
by Frogman64 February 11, 2010 5:31 AM PST

While I am all for a safe society. I place a great deal of value in the notion that as an American I have certain
inalienable rights. The DOJ has it all wrong from the outset. Not only do we as Americans have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, we demand it. We as a nation have taken remarkable steps to protect the privacy of medical
records for example. I assert that not only do I not want the DOJ or any other government agency to freely access
my wireless phone records, I demand that they take all steps necessary to protect my privacy.

by squirrelshooter February 11, 2010 11:47 AM PST

Amen, Frogman64. Just who are these alien "DOJ's"? Where do they originate from? Are they
private citizens? Are they "government employees--the product of a bureaucracy? That is where I
place my bet. It is a fact that government employees get better benefits than their private
counterparts. They also seem to develop a sense of "us against them".
Like this
by irondog1970 February 11, 2010 5:35 AM PST

Let's face it, the "no expectation of privacy" is everywhere: on the Internet, checking out videos or PPV, downloading
songs off of iTunes, using a credit/debit card, entering a bank, entering a governmental building, swiping a loyalty
card at the grocery store, using EZ-Pass at a toll booth, watching cable/satellite TV, walking down the street, or
anything else that a reasonable person does on a daily basis.
We have surrendered our privacy one slow step at a time, and now we have none left.


Most likely true. But then let's reverse the tide and take back our privacy! BTW I do expect that my
credit card transactions etc are to be private.
Like this
by leprechaun224 February 11, 2010 9:24 AM PST

re: "no expectation of privacy" -
It's one thing to willingly give up "privacy" UP FRONT
and with full knowledge - i.e., anything one posts on
the internet. It's completely another thing to have it
taken from you. The 4th Amendment clearly states
the people have a right to be secure "in their ...effects".
Like this
by Fafanator February 11, 2010 10:43 AM PST

Reasonable person, translated as: Insane person who has no idea that he is a Zombie.
Wake up people, the inability to provide for our own food and shelter, and needing companies to
provide it, is our main problem. It is nothing less that a disability of epic proportions.
In the REAL world (not this giant virtual reality we call the real world.) none of us would last a
week.
Like this
by iptofar February 11, 2010 5:51 AM PST

America:
The freedom to be constantly surveilled. The liberty to have the gov't know where you are at any moment.
by sharmajunior February 11, 2010 7:49 AM PST

And also the freedom of the gov't to tell you whats good for you and whats bad.
Like this
by shuyin84 February 11, 2010 5:51 AM PST

So, they want to track our phones and internet usage(different cNet article). So why don't they just partner up with
google and have us tracked? This is not what the founding fathers had in mind....


The NSA is already partnering up with Google for "Cyber Security Defense"...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10447279-83.html
Like this

yea i forgot about that, seriously they should just make it mandatory that we have little chips
implanted in our brains that monitor and record our every thought. That way if we think something
bad like "God I want to kill that guy over there, he's so annoying" the FBI can come and lock us up
for conspiracy to commit a crime, and of course these chips will have little tracking beacons so
that good old Google can always know where we are. This makes me so angry, and of course all
those damn republicans are gonna vote a big yes on that one.
Like this
by Gordy4prez February 11, 2010 5:55 AM PST

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety" Benjamin Franklin
One Nation under serveillance.

by February 11, 2010 8:48 AM PST

This quote is one that every American should know and keep close to their heart.
Like this

LIKE X 4MILLION
Like this
by gary1451 February 11, 2010 5:55 AM PST

While I agree that we are slowly losing our privacy, this is the DOJ. Let them get a warrant if they want the location.
I once had a phone that 'said' I had the choice of GPS all the time or just for 911.
Be careful, be very careful. Federal government is already way too intrusive.

by Da_Teej_Masta February 11, 2010 5:55 AM PST

So much of our privacy has been taken away in order to "protect" us. It's getting to the point of burning down the
forest in order to save it. Soon we will have all of our calls monitored--wait, the Patriot Act has already allowed this-
-nevermind! Big Brother ftw.
by weegg February 11, 2010 6:08 AM PST

Wow, Obama is Bush # 3. This is something Dick Cheney would approve of.


Remember, they are the same family.
Family members think alike.
Like this
by Dear_Reader February 11, 2010 8:55 AM PST

This article says the FBI is pushing for it, and has been for several years... years before Obama
was even President. What on earth led you to believe that Obama--the former constitutional
lawyer--is the one trying to get phone records for FBI cases?
Like this
by b_baggins February 11, 2010 9:07 AM PST

And yet, Cheney and Bush NEVER advocated cell phone tracking for every citizen, only for
individuals placing calls to terrorist nations.
The fact that you can't see the fundamental difference in that is disturbing, though not
unexpected.
Like this
by jokayhn February 11, 2010 10:03 AM PST

<b_baggins>
What Bush and Cheney said in public, typically was in disagreement with any sense of reality or
the truth. They said they didnt torture but all that means is they changed the definition in their own
minds as to what torture was. They said they didn't eaves drop but they did. They listened
regularly to American citizens making mundane calls clearly having nothing to do with terrorism.
Recent whistle blowers have revealed that much.
Like this
by darkstar32170 February 11, 2010 10:05 AM PST

Dear Reader: If Obama didn't believe in it he has the power to order the justice department to
drop it. But he won't because it's his power now. They only complain about it when they're not in
control.
Like this
by gozerzuul February 11, 2010 10:38 AM PST

This goes FAR beyond ANYTHING Bush & Cheney contemplated! If outraged by Obama's blatant
invasion of our privacy - so where is the Loony Lib outrage???
Like this
by MistrE February 11, 2010 10:48 AM PST

Ever hear of FISA??
Like this
by cbmarkwardt February 11, 2010 6:44 AM PST

I would have less problem with the government's theory if they were willing to publicly publish the logs of all
government cell phone calls and locations. If they buy into their own theory, the government would admit that they
have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and therefore there is no problem making all government information
public. If they don't want their phone data logged, then they can just "turn their cell phone off." Somehow I imagine
they won't be doing this.


Yes, let's release GPS location data of all CIA agents on the day of 9/11 before and after the
event.
Like this
by TX-Sunset February 11, 2010 7:42 AM PST

Actually, most governemtn cell phones are untraceable. Anyone remember the controversy after
Obama became president and the Secret Service did not want him to use his blackberry
because it could be traced? I believe RIM customized Obama's blackberry with special
government encryption so he could keep it. But yes, there really are such things as untraceable
cell phones, it is just the government does not want the general public to have them.
Like this
by inachu1 February 11, 2010 7:21 AM PST

We are ever closer to the creation of the THOUGHT POLICE!
Even the thought or dream that you did something bad will land you in jail.


Imagine you are invited to a meeting at someones house. Its political in nature and you live in a small county
where retaliation is common place (like mine). You want to keep your views private but still participate as best you
can in the process. This would allow local law enforcement the ability to see who was at the meeting. For instance
lets say you are a sheriffs deputy and you support a new candidate. You can be fired for that support (yep). How do
you participate in the process of supporting a candidate of your choice if you cannot keep it secret. Sure, leave your
cell phone at home (assuming it only works when making calls then dont make calls from that location...or
receive). I think its ridiculous that trained law enforcement officers face a purge when a new sheriff is elected but
that's how it works.
You like to go to Bunko games. You are a teacher and have been told that doing so violates some morality clause
in your contract. So all the teachers decide to keep it secret, except its still well known that it happens. The
principle has a friend at the police station that can get this information and pass it on. Its not private after all.
You think this scenario is weird, well I have a wife in this situation. They call it book club to keep it private. She is a
union rep at the school and the principal is angry at her because he also supervises his wife and daughter that
are teachers at the school. Its against school board policy, but thats okay because the superintendent is a relative.
Other teachers complained that the situation caused problems (because the daughter uses the power to take
petty revenge against other teachers) and my wife the union rep sent the information up the chain. As a result
theyll have to change the policy to allow it so that the questions stop (yep, they aren't going to change the situation
to obey policy). Its just that kind of county here in Suwanee County Florida. Now imagine the principle wants to
take it out on the teachers that complained. How many walls are there in place to stop him if you cant even keep
where you are and who you talk to private when you are even when you are not committing a crime. If it doesnt take
a warrant or there is no expectation of privacy then there is little recourse the person has to fight back against
abuse.
This is bad. This is slippery slope stuff even when it looks good as far as catching criminals is concerned. They'll
just figure out they need to use family radios in the future but you are stuck with a law that tells everyone where you
are at all times.

by declan00 February 11, 2010 11:59 AM PST

jokayhn makes a good point. Your location involves not just the Fourth Amendment but also First
Amendment protected rights of speech, assembly, and petitioning the government for a redress
of grievances.
In reality, cell phone companies are going to keep these logs at least for a billing cycle or two, so
arguing that they shouldn't be kept at all (I don't think anyone has done that yet in this
conversation, but some surely will) is a waste of time. What's important are the circumstances in
which and the procedures through which those logs can be disclosed.
Like this
by Kasar99 February 11, 2010 12:54 PM PST

That WOULD make it easy to find out who was on the streets protesting on any given day. If they
were protesting something the state were doing, they could just be rounded up later. How is this
a problem? The government only serves the good of the people, right?
Like this
by artemis133 February 11, 2010 4:37 PM PST

Doggone, until I read that your case was in Florida, I thought it was Luzerne County, Pa. That's
how it is here.
Like this
by TX-Sunset February 11, 2010 7:39 AM PST

The scary thing is it is already too late. Larger cities generally now have video cameras on every corner. More and
more toll roads go up that require you to have some device in your car that can be tracked every time you pass
through a toll gate. Every time you use your credit card or an atm, it can be tracked. The patriot act has already
opened up legal wiretaps without needing a judge's ok. Anyone who has a "subscription" for their GPS device can
be tracked. Anyone that drives a GM car with OnStar can be tracked, and stopped or even evesdropped on. Those
OnStar people can turn the mic on in your vehicle and listen in on you without your knowledge. The list goes on
and on. For those of you that think the 1984 scenerio is comming, I have news for you. It happened a long time
ago. It has just been so subtle, no one really noticed until it was too late.


I have no basis on which to disagree with you. Dispite the governments prior intrusion into our
privacy, we cannot give up disagreeing with and opposing such actions by the DOJ and its ilk.
They may have slipped the Non-Patriot Act through in a moment of terror. As a citizen it is now my
charge to dismantle thay legislation one clause at a time if that is what it takes.
Like this
by corelogik February 11, 2010 7:43 AM PST

This is what you get for having GPS in EVERYTHING!


Like listening to our calls is not enough?
Also, you don't need to have gps inbuilt to your device for them to be able to track you.
by 69Voltage February 11, 2010 7:54 AM PST

I don't see a problem with it. If it helps track terrorists, those committing crimes, etc., what do I and other law
abiding citizens have to worry about? If they want to track me, more power to them. You can't be paranoid your
entire life.
by jpsaply February 11, 2010 8:55 AM PST

So, you wouldnt mind a hacker getting into our unsecure network to find your location so they no
when you left your house they can go in and rob you. Last year or the year before our
governments computers were hit by a cyber attack that brought there network down temporarily.
They just had a recent article from our defense department that we are pretty much defenseless
against a full on cyber attack. The government needs to learn to wipe there butts before they try to
wipe ours.
Like this

You trust the government too much, Republican or Democratic. In Hoover's days (and who
knows what happened in the years Bush was in control) he spied on anyone and everyone.
Nothing stops them from doing something illegal, they have the capability, but at least make
them work for it and have some repercussions when caught. The whole law abiding citizens
argument is stupid. Privacy laws are in place to help protect law abiding citizens from people in
government acting on their own or with government knowledge from doing things they should not
with the power they wield. They can catch the criminals. just get a warrant to do so from
someone that can offer some check against the power of whatever official needs the information.
If this continues, some day you may face a government that doesn't care about laws or your
citizenship and you wont have the power to stop it because they'll be able to track everything at all
times. Information is power. You won't be able to communicate or organize an opposition
against anyone in a position of power without them being able to know you are involved.
Like this

I take it your a republican, closed minded fool
Like this
by declan00 February 11, 2010 12:01 PM PST

69Voltage: Would you mind if the legislature were to enact a law banning curtains in residential
windows? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide.
Like this
by william_baker February 11, 2010 12:21 PM PST

So you also believe that there has never been, is or ever will be any corruption in law
enforcement? I have a good friend in law enforcement and you upset me. I give my good friend a
couple of dollars and he gives me information about your whereabouts. I use that information to
find a way to get you in trouble with your wife. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't think this could ever happen
because all people in law enforcement are honorable and would never do anything wrong.
Like this
by william_baker February 11, 2010 12:21 PM PST

So you also believe that there has never been, is or ever will be any corruption in law
enforcement? I have a good friend in law enforcement and you upset me. I give my good friend a
couple of dollars and he gives me information about your whereabouts. I use that information to
find a way to get you in trouble with your wife. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't think this could ever happen
because all people in law enforcement are honorable and would never do anything wrong.
Like this
by jonnyamerica February 11, 2010 7:55 AM PST

Yes, Bush used the program to protect Americans from terrorism. Obama to use the program to attack Americans'
liberty. The Justice Dept., Eric Holder, has helped weaken America. This is just a logical extension of their
radicalism.


The only time the words Bush and Protect can be used together in the same sentence is if the
words "Did nothing to protect" is inbetween and the word "us" is at the end
Like this
by February 11, 2010 1:01 PM PST

Unfortunately, Obama people are just following Bush policies. Bushed passed the law, twice. He
implemented "no knock" provisions across the board. He used it to widely to spy on Americans.
This long slide into into government control went over the top under Cheney/Bush, don't rewrite
history, Moron.
Like this
Showing 1 of 8 pages (239 Comments)

1 2 3 4 ... 8 next
Sponsored Links
Phoenix Chos Tae Kwon Do
ITF Traditional Taekwondo - Fitness No Contracts, Ages 3+, Discipline
www.phoenixchos.com
World Class Gun Training

What is better: Another gun in your safe or you an expert with any gun?
www.frontsight.com
Free Self Defense DVD

Learn Devastating Combat Skills Free 2 Hr DVD Could Save Your Life!
defeatlargerattackers.com
Inside CNET News
The Download Blog Gallery Digital Noise: Music and Beyond Binary Video The Social
Tech
New OpenOffice Skier Vonn uses For ads, social
boots faster, is GrokMusic offers Twitter, Facebook media still a niche
more compatible visual approach to for leg update buy
The latest minor-point
music discovery In a posting on her There's a lot of hype
update to OpenOffice The site's MusicMap lets Facebook page, Vonn about advertising on
brings users faster A look at the new you enter an artist's updates fans and the CNET First Look Facebook, but in the
launch speeds and name, then shows you world on her badly digital-ad market it's still
better support for
Mac Office their relationship to bruised shin, saying she
at Google Buzz a small sliver of the pie.
Microsoft Office 2007- (images) similar artists on a visual is feeling more optimistic
formatted files. map. You can also enter she can ski through the
the names of three pain.
favorites and get up to a
dozen suggestions.
News Popular topics CNET sites More information

News site map Apple iPhone CNET Site map Newsletters
Latest headlines Apple iPod CNET TV CNET Mobile
Contact News Cell phones Downloads Customer Help Center
News staff CES 2010 News RSS
Corrections GPS Reviews CNET Widgets
CNET blogs LCD TV Shopper.com About CNET
LCD TV Crave About CNET Networks
PlayStation 3 Forums Careers
Printer reviews iPhone Atlas Editorial
Security software MacFixIt Press
Wii Tips & tricks
Windows Vista Version Tracker
Webware
Popular on CBS sites: College Signing Day March Madness Lost iPhone Cell Phones Video Game Reviews Free Music
© 2010 CBS Interactive. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy (UPDATED) Terms of Use Mobile User Agreement BNET | CHOW | CNET.com | CNET Channel | GameSpot | International Media |
mySimon | Search.com | TechRepublic | TV.com | ZDNet

Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

home reviews news downloads cnet tv log in join CNET

On GameSpot: Next-gen DS, Xbox tech contracts set?

Home News Politics and Law

February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST

Feds push for tracking cell phones

1102 retweet Share

Google's social side hopes to catch some Buzz

Justice Department is expected

'No reasonable expectation of privacy'

Topics: Privacy, Regulation

Recent posts from Politics and Law Related

ADD A COMMENT (Log in or register)

Showing 1 of 8 pages (239 Comments)

by Kasar99 February 11, 2010 4:38 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by szettervall February 11, 2010 7:56 AM PST

by mike_ekim February 11, 2010 10:25 AM PST

by mireyaayala February 11, 2010 10:50 AM PST

by flhu1 February 11, 2010 12:19 PM PST

Sorry, no one misses the Patriot Act. It is still in effect.

by dennisheadley February 11, 2010 3:18 PM PST

by commsoft February 11, 2010 4:10 PM PST

by n3td3v February 11, 2010 4:56 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by Seaspray0 February 11, 2010 7:07 AM PST

by szettervall February 11, 2010 7:44 AM PST

by Kacela February 11, 2010 5:18 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by darkstar32170 February 11, 2010 10:02 AM PST

by skeerotus February 11, 2010 10:09 AM PST

by makardhwaj February 11, 2010 12:22 PM PST

by kat3839 February 11, 2010 1:19 PM PST

by Johnnie789 February 11, 2010 3:18 PM PST

by steel36 February 11, 2010 5:20 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by n3td3v February 11, 2010 5:44 AM PST

Please tell me you're smoking crack?

by baboa February 11, 2010 5:57 AM PST

by n3td3v February 11, 2010 6:12 AM PST

It's over the top unmeasured and unnecessary.

We need a reality check on actual threat and potential threat.

It's way over the top.

by protagonistic February 11, 2010 7:57 AM PST

Then they came for the Jews,

Then they came for the trade unionists,

Then they came for the Catholics,

Then they came for me ?

by sittingincomputerclass February 11, 2010 8:15 AM PST

by n3td3v February 11, 2010 9:16 AM PST

by leprechaun224 February 11, 2010 9:18 AM PST

by Pete Bardo February 11, 2010 9:38 AM PST

by afounder1865 February 11, 2010 9:48 AM PST

"Those that would surrender liberty for security deserve neither..."

by Pat_in_NH February 11, 2010 9:56 AM PST

See more comment replies

by Frogman64 February 11, 2010 5:31 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by squirrelshooter February 11, 2010 11:47 AM PST

by irondog1970 February 11, 2010 5:35 AM PST

Like this Reply to this comment

by Frogman64 February 11, 2010 5:47 AM PST

by leprechaun224 February 11, 2010 9:24 AM PST

by Fafanator February 11, 2010 10:43 AM PST