We’re headed toward a surveillance society, London style, if people do not speak out against warrantless tracking and surveillance of people in America. The latest breach of privacy: FEDS are using people’s cell phones to follow them with obtaining a warrant. That’s not even legal.
Here’s the story and related info:
Amid all the furor over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program a few years ago, a mini-revolt was brewing over another type of federal snooping that was getting no public attention at all. Federal prosecutors were seeking what seemed to be unusually sensitive records: internal data from telecommunications companies that showed the locations of their customers’ cell phones—sometimes in real time, sometimes after the fact. The prosecutors said they needed the records to trace the movements of suspected drug traffickers, human smugglers, even corrupt public officials. But many federal magistrates—whose job is to sign off on search warrants and handle other routine court duties—were spooked by the requests. Some in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas balked.
Prosecutors “were using the cell phone as a surreptitious tracking device,” said Stephen W. Smith, a federal magistrate in Houston. “And I started asking the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ‘What is the legal authority for this? What is the legal standard for getting this information?’ “
Those questions are now at the core of a constitutional clash between President Obama’s Justice Department and civil libertarians alarmed by what they see as the government’s relentless intrusion into the private lives of citizens. There are numerous other fronts in the privacy wars—about the content of e-mails, for instance, and access to bank records and credit-card transactions. The Feds now can quietly get all that information. But cell-phone tracking is among the more unsettling forms of government surveillance, conjuring up Orwellian images of Big Brother secretly following your movements through the small device in your pocket.
How many of the owners of the country’s 277 million cell phones even know that companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint can track their devices in real time? Most “don’t have a clue,” says privacy advocate James X. Dempsey. The tracking is possible because either the phones have tiny GPS units inside or each phone call is routed through towers that can be used to pinpoint a phone’s location to areas as small as a city block. This capability to trace ever more precise cell-phone locations has been spurred by a Federal Communications Commission rule designed to help police and other emergency officers during 911 calls. But the FBI and other law-enforcement outfits have been obtaining more and more records of cell-phone locations—without notifying the targets or getting judicial warrants establishing “probable cause,” according to law-enforcement officials, court records, and telecommunication executives. (The Justice Department draws a distinction between cell-tower data and GPS information, according to a spokeswoman, and will often get warrants for the latter.)
The Justice Department doesn’t keep statistics on requests for cell-phone data, according to the spokeswoman. So it’s hard to gauge just how often these records are retrieved. But Al Gidari, a telecommunications lawyer who represents several wireless providers, tells NEWSWEEK that the companies are now getting “thousands of these requests per month,” and the amount has grown “exponentially” over the past few years. Sprint Nextel has even set up a dedicated Web site so that law-enforcement agents can access the records from their desks—a fact divulged by the company’s “manager of electronic surveillance” at a private Washington security conference last October. “The tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement,” said the Sprint executive, according to a tape made by a privacy activist who sneaked into the event. (A Sprint spokesman acknowledged the company has created the Web “portal” but says that law-enforcement agents must be “authenticated” before they are given passwords to log on, and even then still must provide valid court orders for all nonemergency requests.)
There is little doubt that such records can be a powerful weapon for law enforcement. Jack Killorin, who directs a federal task force in Atlanta combating the drug trade, says cell-phone records have helped his agents crack many cases, such as the brutal slaying of a DeKalb County sheriff: agents got the cell-phone records of key suspects—and then showed that they were all within a one-mile area of the murder at the time it occurred, he said. In the fall of 2008, Killorin says, his agents were able to follow a Mexican drug-cartel truck carrying 2,200 kilograms of cocaine by watching in real time as the driver’s cell phone “shook hands” with each cell-phone tower it passed on the highway. “It’s a tremendous investigative tool,” says Killorin. And not that unusual: “This is pretty workaday stuff for us.”
But there is also plenty of reason to worry. Some abuse has already occurred at the local level, according to telecom lawyer Gidari. One of his clients, he says, was aghast a few years ago when an agitated Alabama sheriff called the company’s employees. After shouting that his daughter had been kidnapped, the sheriff demanded they ping her cell phone every few minutes to identify her location. In fact, there was no kidnapping: the daughter had been out on the town all night. A potentially more sinister request came from some Michigan cops who, purportedly concerned about a possible “riot,” pressed another telecom for information on all the cell phones that were congregating in an area where a labor-union protest was expected. “We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of abuse on this,” says Gidari.
That was precisely what Smith and his fellow magistrates were worried about when they started refusing requests for cell-phone tracking data. (Smith balked only at requests for real-time information, while other magistrates have also objected to requests for historical data on cell-phone locations.) The grounds for such requests, says Smith, were often flimsy: almost all were being submitted as “2703(d)” orders—a reference to an obscure provision of a 1986 law called the Stored Communications Act, in which prosecutors only need to assert that records are “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. That’s the lowest possible standard in federal criminal law, and one that, as a practical matter, magistrates can’t really verify. But when Smith started turning down government requests, prosecutors went around him (or “judge shopping,” in the jargon of lawyers), finding other magistrates in Texas who signed off with no questions asked, he told NEWSWEEK. Still, his stand—and that of another magistrate on Long Island—started getting noticed in the legal community. Facing a request for historical cell-phone tracking records in a drug-smuggling case, U.S. magistrate Lisa Pupo Lenihan in Pittsburgh wrote a 56-page opinion two years ago that turned prosecutors down, noting that the data they were seeking could easily be misused to collect information about sexual liaisons and other matters of an “extremely personal” nature. In an unusual show of solidarity—and to prevent judge shopping—Lenihan’s opinion was signed by every other magistrate in western Pennsylvania.
The issue came to a head this month in a federal courtroom in Philadelphia. A Justice Department lawyer, Mark Eckenwiler, asked a panel of appeals-court judges to overturn Lenihan’s ruling, arguing that the Feds were only asking for what amounted to “routine business records.” But he faced stiff questioning from one of the judges, Dolores Sloviter, who noted that there are some governments, like Iran’s, that would like to use such records to identify political protesters. “Now, can the government assure us,” she pressed Eckenwiler, that Justice would never use the provisions in the communications law to collect cell-phone data for such a purpose in the United States? Eckenwiler tried to deflect the question, saying he couldn’t speak to “future hypotheticals,” but finally acknowledged, “Yes, your honor. It can be used constitutionally for that purpose.” For those concerned about what the government might do with the data in your pocket, that was not a comforting answer.
Re-post courtesy Newsweek
Related articles by Zemanta
- You Have ‘No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’ (lewrockwell.com)
- Wireless customers for the 4 largest US carriers at the end of 2009 (taragana.com)
- FBI tracking suspects’ cell phones without warrants (boingboing.net)
- Feds push for tracking cell phones (federaljack.com)
- Justice Dept. defends warrantless cell phone tracking (news.cnet.com)
- Feds push for tracking cell phones (news.cnet.com)
- Phone Co. Keeps Records Of Where Your Cell Phone’s Ever Been – And FBI Wants ‘Em (dvorak.org)
- Justice Dept. wants phone locales without warrant (sfgate.com)
- Post-it note suffices for AT&T and Verizon to turn over info to the FBI (trueslant.com)
- Should police need probable cause to request mobile-phone location data? (inpropriapersona.com)
- “This is the first federal appeals court to address warrantless location tracking, which raises novel…” (rafer.tumblr.com)
- Terrorism and child pornography used to justify surveillance society, says academic (federaljack.com)
- Terrorism and child pornography used to justify surveillance society, says academic (telegraph.co.uk)
- In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances (yro.slashdot.org)
- Canada.com: A decade that cost us the right to be alone (boxofmeat.net)
- Brad Templeton – Suing AT&T for a Trillion Dollars While the President Tries to Stop You (itc.conversationsnetwork.org)
Team Obama Keeps Pushing to Take Over the Internet
Re-posted Courtesy of Phil Kerpen – FOXNews.com
If our government does end up in control of the Internet, they could potentially restrict it as a medium of dissent, blocking the ability to communicate, educate, and organize.
Glenn Beck and I exposed how radical White House Internet czar Susan Crawford was in 2009 and she resigned. Unfortunately, in 2010 her former colleagues appear undaunted in their efforts to take over the Internet. Despite the fact that the Federal Communications Commission’s claims to have jurisdiction in this area were revealed to be extremely flimsy just last week, the FCC is moving ahead with proposed “Open Internet” rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers.
“Open Internet” is the left’s latest marketing language for what they used to call “net neutrality.” It sounds simple: force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way. Great, until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.
These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, spending billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet. It’s already started, with $7.2 billion in “broadband stimulus” in last year’s bloated stimulus bill that the FCC considers a down payment on much bigger infusions of taxpayer dollars, which tend to come with strings of government control attached.
If the idea of regulations setting us down a path that ends in government control of the network strikes you as a wild conspiracy theory, consider the words of one of the leading advocates of the “Open Internet,” Robert McChesney. McChesney is the socialist college professor who founded the left-wing group Free Press, which styles itself the leading defender of the “Open Internet.”
McChesney explained his goal to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”
McChesney went on to explain:
“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
Proponents of “Open Internet” regulation believe the phone and cable companies are evil corporations who will rip-off customers and interfere with innovation and free speech. But they’ve been warning of impending doom now for over seven years, and just the opposite has happened—companies have done everything possible to compete with each other on price and quality, especially in the hyper-competitive wireless market.
Fortunately, the American people have an opportunity to make their voice heard about the future of the Internet, and whether it should continue to be comprised of networks owned and controlled by competing private companies or largely reorganized by the heavy hand of Washington regulators. We have set up a public comment campaign on the Americans for Prosperity Web site to make it easy for people to put official comments into the docket at the FCC. You can reach that page and participate by clicking here. The deadline for this round of comments is January 14.
The FCC has also set up its own blog at www.OpenInternet.gov for commenting on its proposed regulations, where the left is running wild at the moment. It’s not clear what legal status blog posts will have, so it’s important to put an official comment in the docket, but we also shouldn’t let the radical left run wild on www.OpenInternet.gov and create the perception that most American think the Internet needs to be regulated. So it’s worth a trip over there to weigh in on the side of regulatory restraint, free markets, and private ownership.
In the absence of a demonstrated problem, it would be crazy to invite in the regulators with their solution of strict government control. After all, if Washington does end up in control of the Internet, they could potentially restrict it as a medium of dissent, blocking the ability to communicate, educate, and organize. Those are the ultimate stakes in the FCC’s ridiculously misnamed “Open Internet” rulemaking.
Mr. Kerpen is chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition and a vice president of Americans for Prosperity. He can be contacted through PhilKerpen.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. His free two-minute Podcast is available daily.