Judge rules probable cause of criminal activity needed to get cell location data
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 12th 2008 8:29PM
posted Sep 12th 2008 8:29PM
A federal district court judge in western Pennsylvania made what could possibly wind up being a precedent setting ruling last week, with him stating that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity before asking a carrier to provide cellphone location data. The ruling specifically addressed historical cellphone tower location data, which the government had argued was no different than routine transactional records (like past credit card transactions), and therefore should not require probable cause. While the EFF and ACLU are both praising the ruling, it looks like it's not quite settled just yet, with a Justice department spokesperson saying that the government is still "considering options" on an appeal.
[Via Mobile Burn]
[Via Mobile Burn]
Two words: Prepaid Cellphone. You can buy them off the street, cash.
That is of course if I was a criminal, but I always keep a burner cell with 40 minutes on it, "just in case."
One word: burner.
(Anyone else a fan of The Wire?)
watch out for the burners! ahaha..
eggonthewaffle! - First thing I thought was The Wire. Best show on earth.
I thought of Burn notice. Love that show!
I thought of Burn notice. Love that show!!
anyone else notice the use of arial makes the site plug look like 'mobile bum'
I like Burn Notice too. I missed the entire first season because I frankly didn't know the show existed. I saw a rerun before the second season started and promptly watched the entire first season on Hulu. Honestly the show could use less of the product placement advertising - but it's still a good show. A lot of good pointers too, you almost want to take notes.
a "burner" can refer to anything you intend to only use once (example a handgun)
I haven't a clue what any of that actually meant. I guess something to do with tracking someone mobile phone.
Based off the title of the article, I'd guess that the police need probably cause of criminal activity to get where you were when you called somebody.
But that's just a guess.
Sadly they will just wave the PATRIOT act in your face and say screw your privacy and rights.
Pretty much. They will just ignore the law and then later on take it to court and grant the telco retroactive immunity. Many people feel they are above the law as has been proven over the past few years.
Checks and balances FTW.
Balancing checkbooks FTL.
This is why I don't use my cellphone whenever possible, pay in cash for pretty much everything, and use proxies. It's not because I do anything illegal, but because they apparently like to check up on you even if you don't do illegal things.
Yeah 'cause they have time for that.
Oh c'mon Steve, we aren't you just as paranoid as John about "the man" tracing your calls and hunting you down, although you apparently don't do anything wrong? It always kills me that some people think that they are actually important enough to be such an intense focus of tracking and tracing from "them".
I hate paranoia...
It's not paranoia to want to not put out information about yourself. It's paranoia when you do that because you think you NEED to stop people from being able to get information on you. It's like encrypting your hard drive; the vast majority of us really have no need to do it, but why not?
@alex
Well said.
@alex:
Some people just have too much time on their hands. :)
It's not that if you're not doing anything illegal then you have nothing to hide, but seriously, that's an awful lot of work to go through if you're doing nothing embarassing/illegal. That's taking it a bit to the extreme. And if a person really thinks the government is out to get them, then 1) they are/should be or 2) they have a really inflated sense of self-importance.
Yeah it's ridiculous, it's not like anybody is in prison or quantanamo innocently or for totally insane BS reasons, and when I say anybody I mean less that 200,000 people tops...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you...
Actually, if they were monitoring us, it would be the ones who actively avoid the normal monitoring who get the extra special monitoring methods.
You probably have a few cams and mics in your room as you type.
Of course they will be very disappointed when they discover that all you do is watch some tv, do a bit of internets, eat some food and have an occasional wank.
"Oh c'mon Steve, we aren't you just as paranoid as John about "the man" tracing your calls and hunting you down, although you apparently don't do anything wrong? It always kills me that some people think that they are actually important enough to be such an intense focus of tracking and tracing from "them".
I hate paranoia..."
Maybe you missed something we call the Digital Information Age? No one HAS to care about you or spend any real time to hunt you down with an efficient database system in place. The second you become a threat (say you participate in an anti-government protest, become a political figure in an opposing party, or any number of other reasons) they have instant access to all the detailed information they want.
Remember, information is power. The more information an institution possesses, the more power it holds over you and I. There is no guarantee that any institution, even our government, will use this information in our best interest.
Don't do anything illegal, and you won't give a shit about who's watching. Seems simple enough.
as far as tracking mobiles. just seems stupid. You have no legal way of tieing them to a person. I mean it might be a company phone. It might be a lost phone. You might've given someone your phone. It may have been stolen. There is a 1000 possibilities.
There may be, but phone usage tends to have patterns, people you talk/text often, and so on.
They just have to look at who you've been talking to to see if it's stolen or not. And it's generally obvious. People who steal phones will probably get rid of the SIM straight away so it won't be calling your contacts. Plus of course if you don't report it as stolen, especially if it's a contract, then it's pretty obvious that you're still in possession.
But if you keep paying the bill with your credit card, it starts to look like you still have it.
Alex, its not paring its valuing your privacy. Its no secret that the government tracks pretty much everything that goes on electronically. If you dont like Big Brother lookin over your shoulder you ovoid that type of services. Its not paranoia it privacy.
I would very well argue that going so far as to use proxies to protect your "privacy" is paranoia, especially when all he's doing is reading sites like this one. (Nothing illegal.)
Aww Fu*$
HAY COUSINZ! U WANT TO GO BOWLINGZ?
It's interesting that to get cell phone location data police basically need to get a search warrant. I had to research a law once for class that involved GPS tracking and the legality of it and the court said they saw no difference between a GPS tracker attached to a car and a cop that's really good at following a suspect. This seems similar to the case at hand, but who knows; I'm no lawyer.
It's nice that the police can't be tracking your position just because they feel like it, now they can be held accountable for it and that's a pretty bare minimum of a standard that I think we can all live with.
"embarassing/illegal"
It's nice how you lumped those two concepts in there together. They are NOT the same thing. The right to privacy is NOT invoked only by criminals. Some of us would just like to keep our personal affairs personal and not worry about some organization or stranger having our activities, habits, and daily routines tracked and recorded.
You can't label it paranoia when the tracking is actually occurring. It then becomes a righteous anger over infringed rights and undermined autonomy.
How the hell is location based data like financial transactions?! Getting where you are from your cell phone is akin to Big Brother retinal-scanning you every quarter city block - it's a GROSS invasion of privacy (and before people say you have no expectation of privacy in a public street, let me say it's called getting lost in a crowd) and the government better have a damn good reason for wanting to find me which is why we have WARRANTS thankyouverymuch.
"I would very well argue that going so far as to use proxies to protect your "privacy" is paranoia, especially when all he's doing is reading sites like this one. (Nothing illegal.)"
Why? Proxies aren't hard to use. Who knows what sites he's visiting?
I've seen numerous cases where sites have been forced by courts to render IP addresses to other entities. A recent case is Ninja Hacker, a fan mod site for Tecmo games that got into a legal battle and was forced to settle. Not to mention the recent Youtube debacle.
Here's the best one:
Archive.org was ordered by the FBI to disclose the personal information of one of their browsers (under the almighty Patriot Act, of course) WITHOUT ANY form of warrant or probable cause. On top of this, archive.org was given a gag order saying that if they revealed the order to anyone but their lawyers, they would be found guilty of treason. Thankfully, archive.org sued and the case was quickly settled; the FBI was horrified of the case even going to court.
Hundreds of these orders go out every year. Less than ten have ever been reported. Doesn't that make you feel safe?
The point is, had archive.org complied and the victim was un-proxied, he's screwed.
"He may be a terrorist"
OK I'll sign this straightaway then.
fyi: as long as your cell phone is on they can track it's location. they want this not to find out where you made calls from but where you are currently. if you have access to this information you don't need to do that triangulation stuff to find out where the phone is. some argue that this can be done even if the phone is off but the battery is still in it. that might be true but i don't believe it.
It's true they don't need triangulation. That's because triangulation is almost never used for anything; it's trilateration. But I'm not sure how you think they can avoid using it; most mobiles don't broadcast GPS data back to the tower, so it doesn't work out that way.
The only way, from the network side, to determine a mobile's position is to know its distance from at least two base stations at once. Now with GSM being a TDMA system, it's important to know the distance to the mobile so it can compensate for c and get its reply in it's own time slot, so the distance from the tower it's communicating with is always known. Additionally, mobiles contact other stations nearby, to prepare for a handoff as they go from one to the next. At the handoff, at least, contact must be made with the two towers, or the call will drop; if there's good coverage, there's more overlap, so there's a larger section where the position may be determined.
But it all falls down to analyzing the logged data for distance info and bi/trilateration to get the position. The issue is not whether or not they have to do the trilateration, it's whether or not they can get the logged data with distance info. (Or, more likely, demand that the network operator do the trilateration for them, and give them position data; same thing in effect, though.)
As for "with the battery in, but phone off", it may depend on the phone, but most cannot be tracked that way. If the mobile could transmit anything to the base station when off, you'd be required to take the batteries out of your mobile when flying. ;-)
The feds have in the past secretively installed custom software/firmware on criminal's phones that made them stay on even when they seemed off and they could switch on the microphone and listen in (they admitted that, it's not a wild rumour), so yeah if you are a suspect then you should take out the battery to be sure.
I would bet, that you, Mr. Blogger, have no fucking clue what "Probable Cause" means.
Please, understand what exactly the role of Engadget is. There is no reason for a blog to make sanctimonious "Fuck The Man" posts.
Anyone who is smart enough to understand the significance of this sort of announcement doesn't need to hear it from a site they go to to get (admittedly well done) updates on the newest iPods.
Hello. I work in law enforcement. In order to get anything from a telephone company (or any other company) you need a SUBPOENA. If I were to call Verizon and tell them I need someone's phone records they would immediately tell me where to send the subpoena. It is not easy to get a subpoena. You have to have a legit reason, and it has be approved by the chain of command.
If they're out to get you like they chased Wesley Crusher in "The Game", just take your com-badge off and leave it somewhere as a decoy while you repair Mr. Data.
-------
If you dump your cell phone in a trash can at a crowded area, they'll be chasing ghosts all day.
If you dump it in a trash can, it stays still; they'll figure out you dumped it eventually. The thing to do is pop it in someone else's car, or some such. (Leaving it under a bus seat doesn't work, as they'll catch onto it following the bus pretty quick, too.
It is all smoke people. If the technology allows it, "they" do it. No law will keep it from happening.
You're right about if "they" want to do something, then "they" will. However, with the proper laws and oversight, privacy violations can be mitigated and, if authorities are caught abusing their power, then at least we have a legal recourse to punish their activity.