Judge grants government request for warrant-free cell tracking

A New York judge, Gabriel Gorenstein, has sided with the US government in its quest to be able to track a cellphone's physical location via tower data, without first seeking a warrant to do so. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the decision is based on "flawed legal analysis," and contradicts rulings by three other judges. Gorenstein based his opinion, in part, on the idea that using tower data to triangulate a caller's location doesn't violate the US Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches, due to the fact that the tracking method doesn't "install a ... tracking device" and only "identifies a nearby cell tower" rather than pinpointing a caller's location. The EFF vows to continue following what it calls a "dangerous new opinion," particularly in light of recent revelations about warrantless wiretaps by the Bush administration.

[Via TechDirt]

[Jeff @ Dec 22nd 2005 11:18AM]

Argh, I'm gonna hijack this comment section for a moment to tell you guys that your feedback system is apparently broken! I just tried to send you a little critique about the comment pagination (I'll summarize: it sucks) and I got a SQL error.



Sorry for posting here, but there's apparently no other way to provide any feedback at the moment. Did I miss the post about the new site features?



Anyway, everybody else feel free to actually be on-topic.

[Wes Comer @ Dec 22nd 2005 11:19AM]

Liberals are funny. When a liberal judge makes a ruling that contradicts hundreds of other judges (i.e. Partial Birth Abortion, Gay Marriage) they're viewed as heros of the law. When a constitutionalist judge interprets the law in opposition of others it's suddenly a "travesty of justice". Give me a break. I say if someone's trying to keep Mohammed al JeFreako from flying a plane into me by listening to his phone calls or tracking his movements, then more power to 'em.

[Barret @ Dec 22nd 2005 11:54AM]

Dear U.S. Government,



Can I please have my rights back? Thanks.



Love,

The United States Citizens

[carpaltunel @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:00PM]

#2 = blissfully ignorant. Durga Durga Jihad



Big brother is getting closer.

[dj @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:18PM]

#2..you scare the shit out of me more than Osama. Willingness to give up everything mankind ever fought for..freedom..gosh, what can listening to Fox news do to a man!

[Derek @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:19PM]

You know what they say. You don't like it? Leave.

[JC @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:22PM]

For as savy a site engadget is, i hope the viewers are smarter then a couple people above this post (i wont name names).



heres a fact, Liberals are the ones up in arms over this, and the funny part is, Clinton was doing it in the mid 90's and no one said a word about it.



Heres another fact. This is about national security, if they pick up a call from 2 people talking about raping and killing people, they pass it up, make a note of it, and the FBI can do whatever they want with it.



#3, with a comment like that, your either left wing, or not an american. neither would suprise me. So unless your into raping babies or something, whats your beef with this?

[Richard @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:24PM]

If this is a useful tool to help law enforcement become MORE NIMBLE in the search and apprehension of criminals, including terrorist, then so be it. Thank God we have an administration and a court system that can see past these �the sky is falling� arguments from the fringe who is more concerned with the rights of terrorist and other criminals then the right of Americans to be free of terrorism and crime. I for one welcome review by the USSC, because thanks to resent and pending changes to the court, I have a feeling this will be found 100% constitutional.



- Merry Christmas

[Steve @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:26PM]

Re #2 : These kinds of knee-jerk comments would be funny if they weren't so stupid. First of all, if the government wants to track a terrorist via cell phone, it CAN. Just get a freakin' warrant! Do you know how many times judges EVER deny the government a warrant for these things? Never.



Also, I'll bet there are more conservatives complaining about this than "liberals." Not the idiotic "conservatives" in the White House now, but the true-blue conservatives who believe in libertarian principles and freedom from government interference in their lives.



Get a grip.

[Jeff @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:36PM]

It is funny. When people back things like this the context is always listening to terrorist conversations, tracking locations of terrorists. But nothing is to stop the government from listening to your conversations, finding a word you said, that dubya doesn't like. Then picking you up, through this tracking device, and bringing you to a secret prison somewhere in Europe. You now have no rights, forever. As it is right now, dubya can do all of this without a warrant for 72 hours, but must go through our checks and balances so he isn't abusing authority of the office of the president of the united states. What is so wrong with that? He doesn't have to go to the press and make it public, he just needs to prove that the actions are justifiable to a third party.

[Andrew @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:36PM]

I have no problems with tracking a person via their cell phone. It's similar, albeit using technology, to simply following that person physically. The content of the phone calls are not seen, the calling/receiving number is not seen, and the moment the person turns their phone off the track disappears. I've never once heard a rational argument for preventing this. Asserting the "slippery slope" argument is logically fallacious and void.



Generally speaking, I agree with the EFF on most of their issues, but I cannot support them completely because of situations like this; there is no damage done to the person being tracked (albeit tracked grossly) and it cannot even remotely be considered a 'search' under US Jurisprudence. I'm pleased that the judge made the right decision.

[John @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:42PM]

The quote says it all: "US Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches". If the NSA was tracking a terrorist phone call and needs to know where he is to stop him from terrorizing then it doesn't seem like this would be an unreasonable search. The US Supreme Court has continually upheld the Presidents broad powers to protect the country.

[joemama @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:44PM]

to JC and all the other blind republitards:



Obviously nobody's into raping babies, but this will undoubtedly be used against its original intent...just like the Patriot Act has been. So the way this should be implemented, if they don't hear anything that's threatening national security, they should pretend they just didn't hear it. NOT make note of it. NOT pass it to the FBI. NOT even regard it. Even when law enforcement agents receive a warrant, the warrant is typically limited to a scope. If the police come in looking for a tire, for instance, they can't route through your drawers because there's no way a tire could possibly be in there.



The way this could be used against the American people is to spy on everybody, and pick everybody up for any crimes they want. In which case, why bother having warrants at all? Why bother having rights.

[j @ Dec 22nd 2005 12:51PM]

anyone else having a problem with firefox? Mainly not being able to view the pictures next to the post

[J @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:07PM]

sorry, apparently the image addresses were changedd and firefox blocked them

[Brian @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:20PM]

Who cares if they listen to my phone conversations. I mean what are you afraid of, they are going to hear you get rejected by that girl you are never going to get? Oh or tghe intimate conversations you are having with your mom. And the problems with warrants is that they take time to get, sometimes time can be a little short.

[Alcaron @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:23PM]

#6 is just ridiculous. "They" say that, yes, but "they" are jackasses.



What a novel idea. "This is broken, the hell with fixin git or preventing people from breaking it, LETS JUST LEAVE."



Here's an idea for YOU #6, if you don't like our freedoms and our civil liberties and want to see them impinged upon by corrupt politicians, why don't YOU leave.



I can honestly say we would be better off without you. Make room for a rational thinker.

[jc @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:33PM]

JC, this story is not about left vs right... and your 'saving babies' comment is nothing but distraction from the real issue.



The article from EFF talks about the loss of privacy and "What other new surveillance powers has the government been creating out of whole cloth and how long have they been getting away with it?"





Personally, I find this very troubling. How long before all big companies have access to this information? What is the next right/freedom to dissapear?

[Alcaron @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:34PM]

"15. Who cares if they listen to my phone conversations. I mean what are you afraid of, they are going to hear you get rejected by that girl you are never going to get? Oh or tghe intimate conversations you are having with your mom. And the problems with warrants is that they take time to get, sometimes time can be a little short."



You....man, where to begin....



In case you werent paying attention (obviously you weren't) the "if you have nothing to hide" argument has been relagated to the status of "only idiots say this".



My advice. Buy a clue.



And on top of it all its just a veiled insult. You have no real point, you openly insult the previous poster, and the only two words in your post resembling a POINT are so completely idiotic is defies the imagination.



"Warrants can take too long to obtain."



So the logical next step, considering we go to the trouble of having secret tribunals, spy councils, "spy courts" and all this crap, is to do away with warrants.



Novel idea....and bear with me while I venture into the fringe of sanity here....why not create emergency warrants?



Oh, crap, you know what, I forgot, you can get a warrant applied retroactively in most cases....damn. There goes that idea.



Whats the problem with that you say? Well, there is a penalty for doing something if the judge decides you SHOULDN'T have and refuses to grant the warrant.



What they are after isn't the ability to do these things in a timely fashion, they allready can, they want freedom from any repercussions. They want the ability to be able to look anywhere they want whenever they want and not be bothered with stupid questions like "is this WARRANTed".



NO sane judge would deny a retroactive warrant on a clear cut terrorist case like everyone keeps spouting.

[Radiant Silvergun @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:38PM]

>>anyone else having a problem with firefox? Mainly not being able to view the pictures next to the post

[JC @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:45PM]

Where was the Patriot Act abused? did they come kick down your door? If you're doing shady things, Someone is going to find out... A comp usa tech finds kiddie porn, or all kinds of warez, contacts authorities, customer is arrested... and all that was to be done to the pc was a usb expansion card installed. i dont see people in an uprage about that. but you have a problem with someone coming across a conversation about blowing a building up, and those involved getting picked up before they put their phones down. Makes perfect Liberal sence to me. Careful now, you may fall off that fence.

[kat @ Dec 22nd 2005 1:57PM]

This is a horrible idea. I understand the need to stop terrorists, etc. but as many others have posted already, this can be done, the only thing that would dissappear now is the repurcussions for the service being abused.

I know first hand that government agencies have a tendency to abuse every inch of power they're given.

When I lived in Indiana, not some crime ridden murder capitol like Gary, but the upper-clase primarily white upper-middle class town of Highland, our police force was actually banned from using the FBI database for a year.

WHY?

Because EVERY TIME the police pulled someone over, whether it would be for speeding or a seatbelt, they would check the person's record on the FBI database. This has nothing to do with whether or not you were wearing your seatbelt, they were trying to find dirt on anyone and everyone to up their arrests and income.

But they got caught, and because of their abuse of the system, they got banned for a year.

I realise that in a way searching the database for major offenders can help, but they were using it to scour for extra offenses they could tack on to Anyone and everyone.

What makes you think that if and when this goes into action the government won't scour your phone calls for any word or series of words that they don't like, and then start tracking you as a possible terrorist, or threat to other citizens?



I personally like the idea that if I'm being wrongly pursecuted I can fight back. but if they're given free reign over tracking and scanning cell-phone calls, then my right to complain is gone.



Just another civil liberty lost.

[greg @ Dec 22nd 2005 2:05PM]

I care if they listen to my calls. I have nothing to hide, but I do like to be left alone. I understand the desire to protect America from terrorism, but with the loss of civil liberties, what is left to protect? Why not use the current system for spying on people here and abroad (ie go up to 72 hours without a warrant)?

All I am asking is to honor the wishes of those that founded this country and protect the people by allowing a system of checks and balances to operate. I am neither liberal nor conservative, just concerned.

[BM5k @ Dec 22nd 2005 2:11PM]

It can't be said enough.



Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin



Just because snooping on EVERYONE means it will be easier to catch a FEW criminals doesn't mean its a good idea. As a matter of fact, it means its a BAD idea.



Used to be you actually had to BREAK a law before they could harass you.



Now they're changing the laws, to make everyone a criminal.



Fuck you, judge.



. o O (how's that for a convincing argument?)

[Barret @ Dec 22nd 2005 2:16PM]

I just love when republicans make arguments like this:



1. With this new system, the government can track baby rapists.

2. If you're against the system, then you're against the government tracking baby rapists.

3. Therefore, you rape babies.



This argument is neither sound nor valid, yet it is the kind of argument that stirs the most attention. I'm not against tracking cell phone calls, but I AM against taking away the need for a warrant to do so. I'm sick of these "you don't like it? leave." comments along with people blindly giving their rights away.



We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for a reason, which is to protect citizens, and NOT to make catching terrorists easier. As terrible as it sounds, the system was designed to easier let a guilty man go free than to let an innocent man be charged.



"Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

[cytyger @ Dec 22nd 2005 2:55PM]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.



-Benjamin Franklin

[Amy @ Dec 22nd 2005 3:21PM]

Maybe we should all get patriotic barcode tattoos and microchip beacons implants embedded into our brains. That would make triangulating our location and identity even easier!!



I hope you can detect the sarcasm there...

[n8 @ Dec 22nd 2005 3:28PM]

I believe the actual quote is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."



But you have to remember that this is from a guy who spelled public with a 'k' at the end. He was really off his rocker after that whole lightening incident.

[Angel @ Dec 22nd 2005 3:53PM]

If the only way Americans can feel safe is to keep every single American citizen under constant surveillance, then America should be one of the safest places in the world to live. For those who live in the Hamptons, this may be true. Then there's the rest of the U.S.



Interestingly enough though, no one in the international community is seeking the U.S.-form of "safety". In fact, if we uphold anything American (that is not a sell-able product) it's the U.S. economy and ythe U.S. military. Why is that? Because that's where all your power comes from: fear. Fear caused by Merican money and American firepower.



If it takes a military, or law-enforcing body, to keep the American economy so strong (or keep it "on top"), then I can understand why the US govt keeps restricting individual freedoms--it HAS to in order tomaintain it's power--just like any other dictatorship. The US govt must restrict individual freedoms to create jobs, enforce those laws, create products for tracking, and then they have to hire a bunch of service people to convince you that THIS IS FOR YOUR THE GOOD OF US CITIZENS, and contributing greatly to the good of the world.



Mobilize support at home and beyond, and then maintain the #1 position as World Power. Any restriction of freedoms by the US government under the TERRORIST banner is reminiscent of Great Britain's restriction of the rights and freedoms of Africans under the banner of philanthropic MISSIONARY expeditions (to save the lost souls in Africa, a.k.a. enslave an entire population to spur the domestic economy). History repeats itself, and there is a valuable lesson to be learned everytime another freedom is restricted.



Restricting individual freedoms does not only protect individuals--it restricts individual freedoms and every eventuality that is associated with exactly that: FREEDOM. So if US citizens are willing to trade in their ability to move about without being constantly surveilled, it must mean that US citizens in general trust their government's intentions with their lives, their tax dollars, their families (draft or no draft), their neighbours, their community, and etc.... Well good for those citizens who trust the current US government, because you citizens are some of the very, very few people in the entire world who trust your current Administration.



We are all entitled to our opinion, and the majority vote will rule. I just hope that the average American can truly say that they are proud of living in the land of the "free" (or shall we say "freely-tracked"?).

[Lord Fuzzy @ Dec 22nd 2005 3:56PM]

isnt this just lovely maybe i should walk around with my pants around my ankles so uncle sam can violate me whenever he wishes big brother is here my friends and guess what hes not going away its just gonna get worse im a young guy (early 20's) and its become very clear that this is no longer a sutable place to raise a family it seems more and more that id have more freedom in china or if i was an illegal alien if anyones starting a revolution ill join i mean shit if a natural born citizen has his rights chipped away in a country suppossedly based on freedom is a shame a real shame i wish i could say im glad to be american like my fathers generation or my grandparents generation but im not its a shame im waiting for me to say pot or bomb on the phone and have the fbi rip apart my home distory everything i own and say sorry were wrong and leave me fucked if im wrong please enlighten me otherwise WTF

[Lord Fuzzy @ Dec 22nd 2005 4:00PM]

p.s. the majority doesnt rule its the minority the "special interest groups" that hold the power like how xmas is the most popular holiday in america but were suppose to call it i dont know gift giving day or some stupid thing because some uptight nut in iowa says it offends them (only an example) but thats how things work

[dx @ Dec 22nd 2005 5:19PM]

I don't get all the "Democrats" and or Leftists with their �the sky is falling� comments.



During Bill Clinton's administration he authorized one of the most intrusive spy programs on the US public ever conceived. Remember Carnivore? They can intercept any of your online activity with a simple warrant. My question... WHERE WERE YOU and why weren't you complaining back then??? I actually remember the same dumb excuses (as some Republicans here) from the Democrats back then. Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrites!

[Alexander Grundner @ Dec 22nd 2005 6:03PM]

Few points to mull over:



1. Bush met with Congress 12 times regarding the NSA tapping into International and Domestic communications � our gov't officials were fully aware of what was going on and gave the President the thumbs up. The reason I know this is because I actually LISTENED to the speech on C-SPAN.



2. The NY Times had the NSA story under wraps for over a year until they decided to spring it on the public because the Patriot Act was up for renewal. (No media bias, huh?)



3. However, there's even more nefarious companies out there -- with no over site -- that data mine and analyze personal data (credit history, buying habits, surveys, drawing entries, political ties, income, race, education, charity, etc.) and then sell their finding to corporations, political groups, or any buyer with the cash, really. Where's the outcry here? Moreover, recently I saw a TV report (not on FOX) where Democrats in the last election used data from these companies for neighborhood targeting. Basically, campaign volunteers would approach prospective voters with "targeted" questions and videos on issues that appeal to them and help sway their vote. Of course, they weren't be presented with both sides of the argument. But that's to be expected sense politics is usually played dirty.



4. Lastly, I know most Engadget readers are tech savvy, so I can almost guarantee that when companies like Google roll out a cellphone tracking that gives you real-time data based on your location (deals, directions, etc.), most won't have a problem with this, even though Google will know where your at any given time. I realize that you've authorized Google to provide the service, but didn't we as Americans authorize our government to protect us from terrorist threats while keeping our civil liberties protected? I can understand this makes most people uncomfortable, but if we drop the Patriot Act and another attack happens that we didn't' detect or anticipate, who are we going to blame?

[David Davis @ Dec 22nd 2005 8:25PM]

We as Americans are going down a disturbing route. The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is just plain ignorant. Authorities will abuse thier powers without checks and balances. Any law being passed, (secret or not) under the guise of protection of the people (ala fighting terrorism) should set off everyone's bullshit alarm.



Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Ben Franklin



Welcome to 1984, show me your papers.

[A. Wiser @ Dec 22nd 2005 8:43PM]

#32,



I remember when that was announced and there was quite a LOT of people complaining loudly about it. In fact, it was even on the front page of the newspaper several times, so don't start with the whole "Liberals suck" dick-measuring thing again. Also, the Carnivore project was shut down quite a while ago. What bothers me is that at least that had media coverage, but stuff like this doesn't. Also, once the "terrorist threat" is "gone," do you really think they will want to go back to the old way and give people their rights back? If you think so, you obviously don't know how government works...

[Alexander Grundner @ Dec 22nd 2005 10:27PM]

David, two comments:



1. The government DOES have checks and balances. As previously stated, the Congress was fully aware and consented (12 times to date) to everything our intelligence agencies requested.



2. It's a big mistake to fully disclose every detail of our intelligence gathering tactics to the public if we are to stay steps ahead of our enemy. Bush gave the following example in his speech on Monday: In 1998, the Washington Times decided it would be a good idea to run a story, based on confidential information, about how one of our intelligence agencies was listening in to Osama bin Laden 's satellite phone conversations. As it turns out, it was for good reason... two weeks later the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed by al-Qaida. Unfortunately, though, after finding out that his conversations were being listened in to, Osama stopped using his phone and let his aids do the talking.



But people might argue that it's OK to only tap international calls, not domestic. I say, al-Qaida hit us from within (twice), so we need to use our best efforts in tracking terrorist in the U.S. while still guaranteeing American's their civil liberties. Granted it's a hard balancing act, but we must have faith that our system of government will protect us from any injustices.

[Alexander Grundner @ Dec 22nd 2005 10:36PM]

By twice, I mean: The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the destruction in 2001.

[Phycon @ Dec 22nd 2005 11:14PM]

Ok, this things only gonna get 3-10 mile accuracy anyway, and after that, who cares, what have i got to hide from the government, just be good, and no one cares. If you dont stick out you wont get stopped!

[theMCD @ Dec 23rd 2005 4:08AM]

I have always been one for the "If you don't have anything to hide" argument, but I don't find it "valid" enough to pose as an argument. I don't believe that anybody should be able to listen in on a conversation, especially when that conversation is believed to be private, without a warrant. However, I don't find there to be any real argument as to why they can't find out where a cell phone is. A warrant is not needed for live surveillance, they can track you that way, so why would a warrant be needed to find a cell phone?



Let's get off the terrorist argument. How about Joe Crazy out there killing people, or even Mike Luped that's robbing banks? Police get a positive ID on them, well, now they just have to find them. Wouldn't it be nice to punch in a cell phone number and find them that way? If a cop decides to track me, even if I haven't committed a crime, what's he going to do from there? He can't arrest me for just walking the streets.



The problem I can find though... I'd be worried about private organizations getting into this. Not just private organizations, but especially Joe Crazy. I doubt (and certainly hope) that it won't get into the hands of private citizens.

[n8 @ Dec 23rd 2005 11:25AM]

First, let's get it clear that what we're talking about here at Engadget is not about the warrantless phone taps authorized by the President, or about the (un)Patriot Act - it's about something completely different: warrantless phone tracking without Presidential (or Congressional) authorization. If this judge's ruling stands, any law enforcement agency can track any phone at any time without reason. Warrants exist to put a check on police powers, and require reasonable suspicion that the person being tracked has committed a crime and should be the target of an investigation. Without this check, there is no limit to what police can track - they could decide to have the entire cell phone network of a small town mapped in real-time with little tags of the people's names. And the triangulation can get a lot more specific than just the "closest cell tower" - triangulation can get pretty close to actual position assuming there are multiple cell towers that are in range of the cell phone. I personally don't want my government (or anyone else) tracking my whereabouts or the whereabouts of my fellow citizens without reason. Nor did our founding fathers, who were pretty clear about not wanting warrantless searches.



As for the arguments laid out about the President's wiretapping without a warrant and the renewal of the (un)Patriot Act, those are other issues. The latter is a law that one can either agree or disagree with, but that ultimately it seems most representatives in Congress do not want to see extended without some changes being made to prevent government intrusion into private lives without reasonable cause. I happen to agree with that stance. The former is another matter entirely: The President's authorization of warrantless wiretaps is a very clear violation of the Constitution and established law. The President has no authority under FISA or any other law to violate the laws of this country, and by authorizing the wiretaps actually violated specific Congressional edict. There are ample measures in place to provide for warrants, roaming or otherwise, in an expedited fashion. There are even provisions for warrantless taps in emergency situations so long as they are followed with a warrant within a reasonable time. But the President held himself above the law - perhaps on principal, perhaps out of hubris - and he violated the laws of the country that he swore to protect.



I thought about whether it was worth it to write anything about politics on a gadget board, but ultimately I think that it is. We should always discuss these things wherever they come up, and we shouldn't shrink from debate just because others use abusive or insulting language, or make absurd arguments. I doubt seriously that anyone's mind is going to be changed on a gadget board, but I commend those who try to do it in a reasonable way.

[JC @ Dec 23rd 2005 11:30AM]

its nice to see #32 and #33 get it, baffle them with facts! i like it. #22, you seem to be confused on whats going on. this is about national security, nothing else. you gave an example of a local, city run police force abusing power by jumping into a federal government data base. and then the federal government cutting them off. and your complaining about the federal government because they stopped some local yahoos from abusing what little power they have? how about a "Good Job FBI! thanks for stopping this!"?



again, this is about national security, they dont care if you cheat on your taxes, they dont care if you fail to make child support payments. they are looking for those who are threatening national security, which is a good thing in case no one told you.



Now, if you are raping babies, and whoever comes across your call, its up to them whether or not to pass that info on, most times, its swept under the rug. If the FBI wants to follow up, they start an investigation, but they dont go kick in your door on the spot and haul you off to prison. i think maybe they should, but they dont. they run an investigation, gather facts and all that good stuff, and if they can persue it, they will.

[Kat @ Dec 23rd 2005 1:11PM]

Before this starts, sorry if it's a double post, but I've been having trouble posting comments on this site currently.



Actually, #41, you seem a bit confused as to the point of my comment. Yes, my story was about a local police force, but the point was that a government enforced law agency was abusing the power they were given.

Yes, that time they were caught, and the FBI did do a

good job by finding out and punishing them, but the problem is that it happened in the first place.

We're supposed to be able to trust that our law agencies are there to support and defend us and

not to use anything in their posession to prosecute us for things that we may or may not do according to some past record or vague recorded words in a phone call.

The point I was trying to illustrate with my story is that these agencies do tend to abuse their powers. Also, this bill doesn't say that this power is limited

to high-power agencies like the FBI it just says that the discretion is left to the Department of Justice, which does go all the way down to the local level. So, once again my little story does come in handy because even if the fbi doesn't abuse the power (which I wouldn't hold my breath on) once the power becomes available to the local agencies, why wouldn't they start using it too?

The Government already has the ability to track people without a warrant for a set period of time, they're just trying to get around the hassle of having to justify their reasoning afterwards. This would

mean they could just track anyone they wanted without any prior reasoning except for the assumption that they're a national threat, because that is implied by the bill itself.

If you have no problem being tracked and followed every minute of every day that's fine. But I am a law-abiding citizen supporting a family, and I realise no law agency would probably ever try to track me, but the

point is it shouldn't happen to ANY law-abiding citizen just because there are a couple law-breakers out there who could possibly be stopped by tracking their cell-phones. If anything I'd think they'd

use pay-phones or something else because they're less likely to be monitored.

But I'm going on too long now, long story short, the government can and has been able to track criminals through legal means for a long time now, even the 9-11 terrorist attacks that some of you were pointing to the information was there before the incident occured but not handled correctly. The ability to get the information they need is there already without invading the lives of law-abiding private citizens.

[JC @ Dec 27th 2005 12:43PM]

I dont worry too much about local authorities, they usually aren't too bright. When I talk government, i'm talking about federal.



Theres an interesting article (a paragraph or 2 actually) dealing with what we're talking about here. After reading it, you'll see W is doing what he has to do. The man is getting it done and i completely agree with how hes going about it... no more talk, just acting.



You can go to drudge to get the link also.



http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r