Does tracking your phone's location violate your Fourth Amendment rights?
By Tim Stevens 
posted February 15th 2010 7:41PM
posted February 15th 2010 7:41PM
Sure, we like keeping track of where we've been, and about every day a new gadget comes along that allows us to better see the virtual breadcrumbs we've spread across the land. But, when it comes to letting the government snoop on our carb-loaded morsels, many of us are a little bit leery. Thus there is a growing debate about whether federal use of those breadcrumbs is legitimate, like the FBI identifying Texan bank robbers by co-locating phone calls made at various crime scenes. For its part the current administration indicates that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to the location of your cellphone. This has members of the ACLU and EFF on-edge, but we're guessing that this doesn't concern any of you Latitude or Foursquare members in the slightest, yeah? [Thanks, Joshua]
@kevout
So you're saying they were guilty before they were tried?
@kevout Allegedly robbed a bank, but it sounds like you believe everything you're told by authority figures, so the difference might be lost on you.
Put simply... It's probably in the contract with your carrier that they can share the information with the government. So, no. It's consented to.
@iamjared
Right... there's a lot of things in there... I hear you give up your rights as soon as your parents "apply" for a birth certificate and get a social security number.
The question is... can we stop it? The answer is no. Life is just too convenient when we use certain services such as google... As long as no one abuses such power, there shouldn't be problems. ^____^
What kind of idiot would rob a bank or stake out a bank while using their own phone. That's what pay as you go phones are for..
It sure would be if the last guy tried it. This guy, meh.
Of course conspiracy theorist will be all up in arms till that same tech they so against ends up saving either their lives or someone elses lives they care about ..then it will become the next best thing since sliced bread
First, when I do not want to leave a trail of my location, I turn my phone off or leave it behind. I'll leave the fight on this issue up to others. The reality is that if you can be tracked, you are and will be. It is difficult to separate the technology that is needed for the functionality from the less desirable uses.
Second, someone (s) will want to be tracked to prove their whereabouts - for purposes of an alibi.
@MLamont
This is what I thought of immediately. That's what the OFF button is for. People do not seem to realize it is just like TV and radio. There are channel selector knobs and power buttons for a reason. Most people also do not realize that their location is known on the E911 system when they initiate a call to 911 on a cell phone. Now, does that make it OK for the government to track my whereabouts? No. They cannot use the logic that I *might* do something illegal to track me.
What happens when local governments decide to start data mining what the feds keep track of and begin issuing speeding tickets because your phone was traveling over the speed limit on the map?
If it can be thought of, they have considered it.
@Slappy Wag I was thinking about the E911 as well.
If people were ticketed for their phone traveling at speeds greater than the legal limit, there would be a huge public protest because my phone's speed does not mean that I was traveling with it and it does not prove who was driving - I could be a passenger, I could be in a cab, or maybe I threw my phone.
No one wants to be tracked or monitored. I enjoy my privacy and prefer to live and spend time in cities but if our government ever legalized tracking citizens (or if I find out they do), I will discard my phone and move to Montana.
I suppose there is temptation to study any all data when crashes occur though. I live in Texas which has made it illegal to text while driving. I do not know how they determine if one was texting while driving except to prove, (1) the person was traveling alone, and (2) TXT messages were sent near the time of the accident. But hey, while we are analyzing your phone records, let's see how fast the phone was traveling at the time right before the accident.
ok.. if you have committed no crimes and done nothing wrong, i dont think the government has the right to track your phone. That DOES violate your Fourth Amendment rights... but i think you give up your fourth amendment rights when you chose to murder and steal..
@mardenator
You don't give them up until it's been proven that you were guilty. At this moment they could just be very very unlucky and could have been coincidentally at each robbery location using their phone.
@mardenator
Huh? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. For the grey area in between, there's a little something called a warrant. The FBI should learn to use them again... otherwise they do not deserve to represent this country nor fly the stars and stripes above their office.
@mardenator
what about CCTV? also a violation? same cause, same tracking function, same innocent people in sight
I believe in this move towards the digital age there has been a serious land grab when it comes to our personal freedoms. If I have a safety deposit box in a bank the police need a warrant to look into that. If I have an email account hosted by google or any other company they should need a warrant to access that information. I know that it's much easier to access information such as gps data from my cell phone provider but just because it's easy doesn't mean I give up my rights to privacy.
So I don't like getting lost and I use a gps that gives the goverment the right to violate my privacy. That is silly and even if you use four square you have control over what people see. Now if I download and app that transmits my information to the police then that would be my choice but most people wouldn't be comfortable with that but what wrong "what have you got to hide" is the poorest reason I've heard for losing your right to privacy.
@vgrfx
It has already been written about cases where the NSA/FBI have walked into banks, flashed their badges, and opened boxes, without anyone knowing. There was an tell-all book about these types of actions by former/retired agents. All done b4 the Pat. act. And I would assume even more so now that we are so fearful....
The eternal value of privacy:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
Cue the "If you've nothing you hide, you've nothing to fear" crowd in 3, 2...
...Oh, they've been here already?
I thought those officers' boots looked mighty clean...
I think you should read my latest post at http://www.zibri.org
It's about tracking and Fourth Amendment rights.
It's about Apple.
First, there is a great oversimplification of the ethics of criminality. It is highly likely that most of us have not shot someone down or stabbed someone to death. To do so seems very disturbing to us (despite our constant exposure to it). Therefore, many of us see those who do such things as "un-human", and we use the word "monster" to describe them. However, a murderer is only someone who has been driven to the point of not seeing killing as such a bad idea, either through suffering and desperation, rationalization and a different view of life, becoming dissociated with others' feelings, or most likely all of the above. The point is not that murder should be ignored or allowed to happen, but rather that murderers do feel they have reason for what they do, and also that we are more similar to murderers than we may care to imagine ourselves. Aside from simply not taking action to save lives, think how many of us condone and allow murder when it serves us. Think of how much we purchase is produced, at least in part, by slaves. (By slaves, I don't mean those with very low paying jobs in other countries, though that's significant also, but literal slaves. Yes, it is common, and there seems to be a larger supply of slaves now, so they are more "expendable". Read about it!) I am writing from the USA, but taking advantage of slave labor happens all over the world (and it's certainly not just with the infamous diamonds). My point is that to treat a criminal as a monster with no rights is hypocritical and unwise.
From a more practical perspective, don't overestimate the morality of government. I'm not trying to be cynical, just realistic. Government does not just go after "bad guys". They go, like any other individual, organization, or corporation, after those who deprive it of what it seeks. People seek power (money, sex, drugs, adrenaline, etc.). Every government left unchecked would eventually lead to a complete controlled society. Institutions which hit the critical mass that most governments hit (that of gaining so much power that it controls them, controls their purpose and their morality) do not simply give back power or reduce influence unless pressure (or opposing power) forces them to do. Therefore, when (at the risk of sounding craaaaazy) "they come for you", as you have committed the crime of not going along with them (building their machines, using their medicine, fighting their wars, converting to their religion), your abilities to defend yourself, escape their grasp, or live comfortably within their grasp are all you'll have left.
From an even more practical perspective: You must realize that most of you (certainly those within the USA, probably other countries as well) have likely committed plentiful crimes, and therefore (according to some) should all have your rights taken away and be thrown in jail. (Though I don't think the free 1% of the population could comfortably support the incarcerated 99%. lol) Maybe peruse "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"
Any deviation from the Bill of Rights made to "only get the criminals" will eventually get many more than just the criminals (or everyone will be a criminal).
Look, it's been possible to track someone's cell phone without a warrant for years. Only "taping" the conversations needs a warrant. It's also been possible to every other radio transmission, legally, for years. This includes CB-Radio, HAM Radio, Cordless phones, walkie-talkies, you name it.
There has never been an expectation of privacy for ANY radio signal. Content? Only losely, But not for the signal itself. Only ignorance of the technology by consumers has lead cell phones users to think they have an expectiation of being untrackable.
Kinda like how most people falsely think the Internet is anonymous.
@strommsarnac
Not too long ago one could buy a receiver that could intercept cell radios. They were banned from sale not long ago. Those radios are still out there; hence new methods of encryption.
Now, tracing location signals is different. Surely abused by those agencies that have "offices" inside the telco's exchanges...
I once had an argument with a yank who was rattling on about "how this breaks my something something rights" etc. Was like "Mate...you're in Surrey"
How long till there is an app to spoof your cellphone signal? Or to shut down the phone between calls? Whenever something like this comes along someone else always finds a way around it.
It's called the Patriot Act and it allows the US government to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want with your information and blatantly violate your privacy. That's what you get when you have a bunch of congressmen who are two chicken shit to deal with the real issues and the rest of them don't even bother to read bills before they vote on them.
Welcome to America...
@kenny goo
The patriot act still requires Due Process. next, the Supreme Court already rules that a tracking device is not a "search" as is noes not invade your personal body, curtailment, or closed and locked property. Further, you can not take the 4th amendment without the 5th amendment, which in fact grants the government the power over your liberty, life, and property with nothing more than "Due Process" A warrant is only required to protect you from "unreasonable search and seizure" however "reasonable" search, like accessing records about where you have been at a particular time associated with an active investigation, seeing things in plain sight, accessing land in view of the public, viewing your mail (from the outside of the envelope), and other exceptions is not a search. It is not against the law. NUMEROUS cases have upheld this.
@zelannii
Lol. Due process. That's cute.
You might wanna do a little research about privacy and it's relation to the 4th amendment prior the recent history of an administration that's manipulated it's people into letting them blatantly ignore it.