Cell-Site Tracking

[Heretic]

It's ok to get records from phone companies without warrants to track your movements.

Court OKs Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking

[Spidey]

Privacy was always a illusion at best…now that we’re in the electronic age it’s not even an illusion anymore.

[Will Robinson]

I'm no lawyer but it seems to me they are given permission to obtain data on where your cell phone was at a given time not necessarily where you were. I imagine the police could see traffic camera data or security camera data to see where your car was at a given time without violating your rights as well.

Obviously 'where your phone was' at a given time could help convict you but is that data really yours to begin with? You are carrying around a device that is broadcasting it's location out to anything that can understand the language it is shouting in...

[null0010]

On the one hand, I think this is absolutely not cool. On the other hand, if you're doing anything remotely shady... don't have a cell phone, I guess?

Still, 100% lame.

[Spidey]

Using that technology, they can only tell what tower your phone is broadcasting to, but using a type of signal strength detection and a minimum of three towers they can probably get a rough idea where your phone actually is. But with the variation of the signal at any given time, this is highly unlikely.

I believe two towers can narrow your location down to 2 possible locations. (two intersection points on the predicted radiuses) (again very rough)

To actually pinpoint the location of your phone using the broadcast signal, would require a minimum of two “sweeping” type detectors.

Now GPS is another story…

[woodchip]

A good lawyer would simply argue that, OK you know where my clients cell phone was...now prove he was the one carrying it.

[AlphaDoG]

Not to mention the very large number of unregistered phone numbers. I carry a prepaid and my name is in no way associated with said phone.

Now those pesky government subsidized cell phones are another story, but I'm willing to bet that more than a few of those are fraudulently registered as well.

[null0010]

Not to mention the very large number of unregistered phone numbers. I carry a prepaid and my name is in no way associated with said phone.

Did you buy it with a credit/debit card?

[AlphaDoG]

I carry a prepaid and my name is in no way associated with said phone.

Did you buy it with a credit/debit card?

Heh! What do you think?

[Kilarin]

On the other hand, if you're doing anything remotely shady... don't have a cell phone, I guess?

There was a court case recently where the prosecutor argued that the fact that the accused had left his cell phone at home was evidence that he was intending to commit a crime and did not want to be tracked.

Despite the protests of the defense, the judge allowed the argument.

[Spidey]

Lol, and we wonder why people go postal.

[Heretic]

On the other hand, if you're doing anything remotely shady... don't have a cell phone, I guess?

There was a court case recently where the prosecutor argued that the fact that the accused had left his cell phone at home was evidence that he was intending to commit a crime and did not want to be tracked.

Despite the protests of the defense, the judge allowed the argument.

Where would one find the article of this event?

[null0010]

I carry a prepaid and my name is in no way associated with said phone.

Did you buy it with a credit/debit card?

Heh! What do you think?

Some people aren't aware of the ease that people can be tracked with bank statements and retail purchase history data aggregation.

[snoopy]

On the other hand, if you're doing anything remotely shady... don't have a cell phone, I guess?

There was a court case recently where the prosecutor argued that the fact that the accused had left his cell phone at home was evidence that he was intending to commit a crime and did not want to be tracked.

Despite the protests of the defense, the judge allowed the argument.

I guess I'm up to something shady today, then, because I couldn't find my phone this morning and went to work without it.

I expect that there's more to the story than that (I.E. the person was "on call" and was contractually bound to be carrying the phone, or something like that) and I'd hope that the jury would see through the argument if there wasn't more to it.

[Gooberman]

This just doesn't bother me. If you carry something, or radiate anything, that comes into my house, I have a right to see or find-out what it is.

This is the same from the governments perspective. As far as I am concerned, if something radiates outside of your house or pocket, it falls within the \"in plain sight\" interpretation.

[snoopy]

I agree with you generally Goober.

We sell off lots of our rights when we sign these contracts with our cell phone provider, cable provider, etc. If you don't like it, you're welcome to find another carrier (as per our pre-paid example) or not use one at all. While the result differs little, I wonder if there's an important difference between the government claiming the right to listen in on your transmissions, and the government making the cell phone provider hand over records about your transmissions?

I do kind of wonder what implications this has in the context of wire-tapping. I guess maybe I'm not all down with the rules on wiretapping, but by Goober's analogy, shouldn't it be legal to wire tap, as long as the connect point is in public space, I.E. at the pole, not in your house?

[Spidey]

Wire tapping would be totally legal according to Goob’s analogy…because all wires carrying current “broadcast”. (and phone lines ain’t shielded)

Better get FIOS.

[flip]

As far as I can remember it is illegal to listen in on conversations from others phones, even if it is broadcast freely. You can't even legally own a scanner if it is capable of picking up cell transmissions and it is still illegal to even listen in on the older wireless phones that broadcast around 49 mhz even though most scanners can easily pick those up. So, no it is not anybody's right to listen in just because it's \"in the air\". As far as the government be able to eavesdrop, IMO, there should be clear probable cause first, ALWAYS.

[Gooberman]

If the wire goes through my house on property that I own, then hell yes, I should be allowed to splice it.

Now, similar to cell phones, wireless internet, or antennas, you should also be allowed, and are allowed, to take measures to code/decode that signal so that I can't understand what you are doing.

However, that coding is a contract between both ends of the transmission line, and if either one of them wants to devuldge the information, then they should be allowed to do so.

[Spidey]

Better learn to speak in code, because I can listen to the conversations in your house by tapping the sound waves that are coming off of your windows.

[Gooberman]

If you can do that without comming onto my property, then yes, you should be allowed to do so. If something I do leaves space that I own, and enters space that you own....I should not have any right to tell you what you may or may not do with it.

[Spidey]

Did you ever hear the one about the old lady that called the police on her neighbors for indecent exposure?

When the cops got there they looked out the window and asked “why did you make this complaint, I can’t see anything”…and the old lady said…Oh no…you have to use this telescope.

And, you are wrong about tapping a telephone line that’s on your property, if you don’t believe me…call the FCC.

[Will Robinson]

I think there might be a difference, at least in the eyes of some judges, between your spoken word and your cell phone checking it's location in with a tower.
It's kind of like you driving down the road talking to a friend in the privacy of your automobile, you have no right to be unnoticed as you drive by even if they can't plant a listening device in the car to hear what you are talking about.

[Kilarin]

Where would one find the article of this event?

Had to dig around a lot to find the references. I never could find the original article I read, but I think the 2007 case below was the one it was talking about. If so, it was Germany and not the US, so I misremembered the place and some of the details. <sorry!>

In Germany, in 2007:
The fact that he "allegedly intentionally" -- did not take his mobile phone with him to a meeting is considered as "conspiratorial behavior" and part of the grounds for arrest.
http://einstellung.so36.net/en/openletter

This 2008 case in France is also similar:
"The government said those arrested did not have mobile phones in order to avoid being detected."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... anarchists
All but one of these were released.

An article about both of the above incidents:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10 ... _tracking/

I expect that there's more to the story than that (I.E. the person was "on call" and was contractually bound to be carrying the phone, or something like that)

There was "other stuff" going on, in that the lack of a cell phone was not the sole reasons for the arrests. BUT, there wasn't anything else going on about the cell phones themselves. The fact that they did not have a cell phone was considered suspicious.

[Spidey]

Kilarin, I didn’t say that, please stop misquoting me, you have a bad habit of doing that. This is at least the 3rd or 4th time.

[Kilarin]

Kilarin, I didn’t say that, please stop misquoting me, you have a bad habit of doing that. This is at least the 3rd or 4th time.

Edited and corrected. I'll pay more attention.

[woodchip]

Now just a darn sec here. Back during the Bush era we had a big discussion here about how bad it was that the Govt was tapping into terrorist cell phone calls. Now we have people like Goob saying it is perfectly OK to listen in on anything that radiates. I wonder who had what stance in the old warrant-less cell phone thread.

[Gooberman]

If you have an agreement with your phone company that they wont divuldge your conversations, then the government should not be allowed to randomly force them to give them information that doesn't belong to them.

If I build a bon-fire in my back yard, and wave a blanket over it sending smoke signals into the air, and you know how to understand my signals, I should not have any legal right to sue you if you write it down and interpret the message. (Even if "you" is the government).

And, you are wrong about tapping a telephone line that’s on your property, if you don’t believe me…call the FCC.

If it is burried under my property, then perhaps, I certaintly don't claim to own the other side of the earth. But if it goes in my window, and out another window, then yes, I should have some say over it.

[snoopy]

Now just a darn sec here. Back during the Bush era we had a big discussion here about how bad it was that the Govt was tapping into terrorist cell phone calls. Now we have people like Goob saying it is perfectly OK to listen in on anything that radiates. I wonder who had what stance in the old warrant-less cell phone thread.

That's why I bring up the difference between the government listening in, and the government making my cell phone company hand over the records. In the first case, I kinda of think that it's my own fault for letting it out in an unsecured format. In the second case, I probably signed away my right to protest when I didn't read all of the fine print in my cell phone contract, but if I didn't, I have a problem with the government assuming the power to take it anyways.

[Tunnelcat]

Now just a darn sec here. Back during the Bush era we had a big discussion here about how bad it was that the Govt was tapping into terrorist cell phone calls. Now we have people like Goob saying it is perfectly OK to listen in on anything that radiates. I wonder who had what stance in the old warrant-less cell phone thread.

Big Brother is Big Brother. I'm against both cases of listening in and tracking. There's no way to separate the illegal or legal blathering on cell phones, or where those phones are located at any one moment. It's passive and creepy as hell. Who the heck reads the ENTIRE EULA anyway? It's long and in some foreign language.

[Spidey]

Well Goob, since you’re being more specific…the D-Mark for the entire block is bolted to the back of my house…do I have the right to tap into it?

[Gooberman]

If its on ground that you own, and you have not made any contracts, or previous owners (in which you agree to by buying their property), have made any contracts, you should be allowed to do with it whatever you want.

I'm not saying this is the law, I am a big anti-eminent domain guy, and I am willing to bet people could argue that its in their interest that you relinqish the property it sits on. But from a moral view point, YES, your land, your stuff.

(And why don't you argue against the other example, which is a much better analogy with a \"radiated signal\". Why should you be able to throw smoke signals in the air and prevent others from looking at them and using any sort of reasoning. If you are throwing something into free space, you shouldn't have a right to tell me what I can do with it)

[Spidey]

My argument stems from one basic principle…privacy only exists when other people respect it.

In other words, your right to privacy is based on…well, the right to have privacy, and not some technicality.

………………

Sorry, I guess I didn’t really understand your smoke signal analogy…to me sending smoke signals would be akin to yelling in the public square, with no expectation of privacy.

[Gooberman]

I agree with that, what one should do, and what one should be punished for doing, are quite different.

[Gooberman]

Sorry, I guess I didn’t really understand your smoke signal analogy…to me sending smoke signals would be akin to yelling in the public square, with no expectation of privacy.

The difference between the two is only the frequency in which you interpret the electromagnetic radiation. The \"smoke\" signal will come at you in the visable wavelength range (390 to 750 nm), while cell phone is ~ a few GHz (a few centimeters, I believe, I'm not an expert in cell phones).

So why should one be ok, and not the other. (Or, why should they both be illegal). If our eyes were capable of seeing GHz frequencies, would it then be ok to track you from your cell phone? (How could I not?)

On a nerd side note, how cool is it that we can see something

0.0000005 meters big, but not
0.3 meters big?

Eyes are wow

[snoopy]

My argument stems from one basic principle…privacy only exists when other people respect it.

In other words, your right to privacy is based on…well, the right to have privacy, and not some technicality.

My argument is that we have options to protect our privacy when it comes to wireless communication. I see forms of encryption as the digital analogy to closing your blinds, lowering your voice, or using a sealed envelope as opposed to a postcard.

Sorry, I guess I didn’t really understand your smoke signal analogy…to me sending smoke signals would be akin to yelling in the public square, with no expectation of privacy.

Along Goober's argument, only from a different angle: the only difference is your expectations. I think a more realistic example would be having a normal-volume conversation in a public place... you aren't trying to broadcast your message, but at the same time you aren't taking any action to prevent people nearby from overhearing.

All-in-all, back to the cellphone part of it: In my opinion, the biggest culprit is the carriers who give away our privacy. At the same time, if we cared more as a society, we'd be pressuring them not to do so.

[Spidey]

I agree with you snoopy, one should always take steps to protect their privacy, and this also shows others your desire to have privacy, therefore obliging them to give it to you. But on the other hand, it’s not possible in every case, so I have to stick to the idea that privacy is something that others give you, and not something you can provide for yourself.

An example…

If I wanted to, I could listen to my next door neighbors conversations all day and night, the sound comes right thru the walls. And according to Goob‘s logic…I have every right to listen to them, but I happen to disagree and give them their privacy.

What are they supposed to do…go hire a contractor and soundproof their house? Some sound would still pass thru, and I could always use a device to listen to them.

Privacy is something you will always have to receive, not something you can provide for yourself, an unfortunate truth.

[Lothar]

this also shows others your desire to have privacy, therefore obliging them to give it to you.... privacy is something that others give you....

If I wanted to, I could listen to my next door neighbors conversations all day and night

This all ties nicely into the "in plain sight" rulings. If you're doing something that it's reasonable to expect other people to see or hear (say, because you're in public), you have no expectation of privacy. But if you're "in private", other people -- and organizations and governments -- are supposed to respect that.

Of course, they may choose to violate that. Privacy is something others give you; when they choose not to, then it's up to you to protect your information.