Login:
Password:

US Justice Dept. sued for info on cellular tracking practices

By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews

July 3, 2008, 6:30 PM

In purported efforts to help the public "understand the privacy risks of carrying a mobile phone," the ACLU and the EFF are suing the Justice Dept. for "documents, memos, and guides" about procedures used to track individuals through cell phones.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation aren't looking for money -- except to cover their own costs -- in their most recent lawsuit against the US Department of Justice. Instead, the two civil liberty advocacy groups want information about whether and how the government might be using the location capabilities in cell phones to find out where people are.

"The overwhelming majority of Americans -- over 200 million people -- carry mobile phones. This large number is steadily increasing. The information the ACLU seeks therefore bears on the privacy of a vast segment of the United States population," according to the complaint, which was submitted this week under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Recent court decisions and media reports reveal that US Attorneys Offices (USAOs) are assisting law enforcement officers in obtaining information from mobile carriers that enables officers to track the location of individuals' mobile phones," the document says.

"Court decisions indicate that USAOs claim not to need probable cause to obtain real-time tracking information. News reports further suggest that some field offices are violating a Department of Justice 'internal recomendation' that 'federal procecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas.'"

Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit asks the DOJ to search several specific federal offices within the agency -- including US Attorneys' Offices in six states and the District of Columbia -- for records related to cell phone tracking.

The types of records sought in the suit pertain to policies, procedures, and practices used for obtaining mobile phone location information; the DOJ's "internal recommendation" and any violations of that recommendation; and the number of times the government has applied for a court order, based on less than probable cause, using that court order as authority to obtain mobile phone location information, "and whether such applications were successful."

In an appendix to the court document, the plaintiffs have attached a news article that mentions a couple of location-based services already offered by mobile providers for tracking people outside the realm of criminal justice. The two examples include Verizon Wireless' Chaperone service, aimed at helping parents to track their kids, and Sprint Nextel's "loopt" service, for "sending an alert when a friend is near."

It's important to note, though, that if carriers are enabling cellular tracking -- whether for parents, friends or law enforcement officials -- any location data they're obtaining really refers to the phone itself, as opposed to the mobile subscriber.

Many cell phone owners don't carry their phones with them at all times. People also lose and temporarily misplace their phones, and loan them to family members and even casual acquaintances. Consequently, a cell phone's location isn't exactly a solid indicator of the actual current location of the owner of that phone. So beyond any privacy risks, there could be risks, too, of mistaken identity.

Add a Comment (26 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By bob.power

edited Jul 13, 2008 - 3:52 PM

My wife was recently mugged and here purse was stolen. Her cell phone was on, the thief even made calls on it. We asked the police to call T-mobile and track the phone. T-model would not do it unless it was a homicide, bank robbery or kidnapping. There is not 4'th amendment issue if the phone is yours and the phone companies should be required to cooperate with law enforcement agencies to locate someone who has stolen you property. I want to try to get a law passed in Arizona to require cell phone services to cooperate with law enforcement in such cases. Can you anyone on this blog help be id such laws in other states that are reasonable and fair.

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 4:13 PM

Wow the ACLU cares?

Score: 0

By setzek

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 1:00 PM

Google Scan's user's email to display advertisements
http://www.nytimes.com/2...AY&pagewanted=print

iPhone a Trojan Horse For Government Surveillance?
http://www.prisonplanet....7iphonesurveillance.htm

FBI records audio from cell phone when phone is off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6UCKTXL9Y

Prototype software from Google Research could listen to your TV and send back useful information
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19050/

Excellent film on government sponsored terror
http://video.google.com/...ocid=786048453686176230

Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
http://www.prisonplanet..../160206privatehomes.htm

THEY WILL BE DEFEATED. Wake up and get in your body. Feel the energies that you were taught to shut down.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 5:54 PM

Tin-foil hat wearer posts on Betanews
http://www.betanews.com/...ly&reply_to=1739851

Seriously get a life and start making a real difference.

Score: 0

By jwkckid1

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 2:41 AM

I am not sure that even with a search warrent, especially if the person whom owns the cell phone in question isn't aware of a warrent being considered in advance that any law enforcment agency, including the USDOJ should
be tracking individuals via their cell phones.
Sems to me this would be an evasion of privacy,
and a very scary if not potentially dangerous
thing under some circumstances. For instance, suppose a warrent was sought for false, but seemingly or supposedly very nafarious and suspicious reasons because some fellow/gal angered some USDOJ or other law enforcment official?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 3:52 PM

Huh????

And given your 'for instance', not only would they have a record of the request, they could locate the area from where you made your last cell phone call.

And???

Score: 0

By Asphyxium001

edited Jul 6, 2008 - 8:38 AM

"And I don't know that anyone has an explicit expectation of privacy regarding loation of calls - after all, the big fuss over VOIP was that 911 calls and other emergency calls be able to be tracked for location - thus if anything, there is an expectation that calls Can be tracked - even if they aren't."

The way it works is you can set it to enabled, where it works with compatible applications (Chaperone, loopt), or set it to "911 only".

This has nothing to do with calls in general. This is about law enforcement querying your phone for your physical location. Such actions (in reference to law enforcement) are a very big deal and should not be treated lightly, at all, whatsoever.

If law enforcement wants to know where you are, they need to prove that they have the right to obtain that information by acquiring a search warrant.

Obtaining your location through your phone is not like looking your address up in the phone book, it's manipulating your private property from a remote location. To me, it's similar to accessing the contents of your computer's hard drive in terms of accessing your private property.

The ACLU and the EFF serve a purpose that no one else is fit to fulfill: to protect your rights and freedom. I don't know much about the ACLU, but the EFF also protects corporations from injustice as well.

If you don't have deep pockets, you can't afford to go to court against a large corporation or the federal government. That's where the ACLU and EFF come in (they don't just help individuals though, or help only in matters against large entities).

If your rights are being violated, they have the financial and legal resources to let you have your day in court and help to establish legal precedents that continue to protect all of us into the future.

If it wasn't for groups like the ACLU and EFF, the US would significantly lack much of the checks and balances that keep this country a free country.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 6, 2008 - 3:18 PM

"If law enforcement wants to know where you are, they need to prove that they have the right to obtain that information by acquiring a search warrant.

Obtaining your location through your phone is not like looking your address up in the phone book, it's manipulating your private property from a remote location. To me, it's similar to accessing the contents of your computer's hard drive in terms of accessing your private property."

Both a fascinating assumption and an erroneous analogy.

Since when is locating a piece of hardware on a network illegal? Provide the law that makes such a query illegal.

Querying the network for your location accesses public network switches - much like one might identify any hardware on a network, and no one has challenged this ability. Quite the contrary. Such queries have always been considered open, as such has been the very nature of network communication!

It in NO way queries private information such as that on a hard drive. Your analogy is non-nonsensical.

But it does represent a common emotional response to a legal and technological process.

Score: 0

By Asphyxium001

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 3:45 AM

I still think that it's a specific action to access such information. I honestly don't know how acquiring such data works at all, but it seems to me like it would be an individual, isolated request for information to obtain anything through GPS/tower triangulation.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 6:07 PM

Phones are equipped with GPS technology and network traffic is designed to be able to locate routes and location.

That is a fundamental technological capability.

There is not provision either via EULA or by law that provides for an expectation of privacy with cell phones.

While many may ASSUME a right to privacy, where is the explicit guaranty that states the expectation that one should feel protected from such a query exists and that such a query is a violation?

Thus far all of the emotional rants are based upon emotional supposition of a right that is neither stated nor in evidence.

I can't wait for similar whining to occur when folks discover that most rental cars are equipped with GPS and that all travel is tracked!

"But I have a right!" Really? You can't just make this stuff up after the fact! Maybe I should rephrase that, as MOST here do EXACTLY THAT!

Why doesn't anyone ask such questions Before they sign up for the service, instead of whining about and discovering the facts at some later time???

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Jul 5, 2008 - 4:32 PM

First of all, I guess no more calls to 1-900 numbers.
Second- the recording of phone calls tends to be dictated by state laws. What is important is which state the call came from. Some states require the consent of both parties, some require only one person's consent.

As far as at the federal level, if it is not approved by the FISA court, it is unconstitutional.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 5, 2008 - 12:25 PM

A couple of points. One germaine and the other tangential.

This suit is in regards to the tracking of phone calls, not the eavesdropping of cell phone calls - which are essentially low power radio broadcasts.

And I don't know that anyone has an explicit expectation of privacy regarding loation of calls - after all, the big fuss over VOIP was that 911 calls and other emergency calls be able to be tracked for location - thus if anything, there is an expectation that calls Can be tracked - even if they aren't.

Secondly, some might wonder how the altruistic ACLU get paid, considering they offer their services pro bono....Hmmm, let's see...

Aside from 'donations', the taxpayers pay! (Why am I not surprised!)

This is accomplished through the Federal program mandated by the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fee Awards Act of 1976.

If the ACLU wins a case that involves a public institution, for instance, the organization collects the full legal fees of its attorneys even though those attorneys offered their services pro bono (without charge).

But don't YOU dare ask them what their budget is! You see, where THEY are involved, unlike everyone else!, its none of YOUR business!

A nice racket if you can do it, wouldn't you agree.

Likewise, in a tangential but popular subject subject that few understand regarding the area of public funding for private organizations masquerading as 'public' organizations:

PBS - you know, the perennially cash strapped altruistic organization always begging for crumbs in a manner that makes the Catholic Church blush...

One could wonder why none of the substantial derivative marketing profits from the Sesame Street characters and myriad spinoffs and assorted other characters controlled and owned by PBS ever see their way back into the operational funds of PBS.

But then they have such a hard time making money as they play the poor misbegotten stepchildren who are only trying so hard - as they underwrite programs for producers who essentially make an infomercial for their aftermarket goods at no risk to themselves which is then leased back to the stations for use.

Where as in commercial TV land (where the svelt racket is not so elegant), producers of such stuff must incur all risk for production and paying tohave the program broadcast and then hope that the sales generated from the showing are greater than their expenses - including the risk incurred by manufacturing the stuff they hope to sell!

Thus one has incredible exposure, while with PBS are you surprised that a few have come to rely on no risk underwritten infomercials pushing their business and market sales of their cookbook, restaurant, etc. etc., etc. while the station has a multi-tiered leaseback to its affiliates all with substantial writeoffs at each level as it is a business expense.

But if you question this (and try to have a discussion regarding this structure or any of the specific public corporation's expenses with your local PBS station - where stations like KERA(Dallas) and WGBH (Boston) actively shared their private membership lists with the Democratic parties in 2000 - big surprise, huh!?) you are called a mean spirited conservative. You know, where donations are solicited less for annual memberships and where the wealthy are targeted for $250 and up every 3 months or less in some areas!...as PTV is for those common folks who cannot afford cable and satellite! Oh, but you never hear that line of reasoning anymore.

But you won't see the ACLU questioning this financial boondoggle that is public ONLY by virtue of having the name "public" in the Corporation header!

And you Won't see a Frontline investigating the financial structure of PBS!

Score: 0

By paps

posted Jul 5, 2008 - 1:28 AM

Is the ACLU and EFF suing the government for discovery about a possible 4th amendment violation, or is this a FOIA request?

I need to read this complaint or whatever they filed, anyone have a direct link for this?

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jul 4, 2008 - 4:10 PM

UNDERSTAND what? An IDIOT doesn't know that mobile phones are glorified radio transmitters. How many times does somebody have to make ILLEGAL recordings of OJ Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Gennifer Flowers and even Prince Charles; before the rest of those morons wake up.

The corrupt US CONGRESS banned dozens of 800 mhz receivers; because their corporate contributors, refused to SCRAMBLE their srvices. ANALOG FM cellular phones became HISTORY about three months ago. They and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 went the way of the dinosaurs.

How ironic, the guy next to you on the road might well be using a madatory "hands free" device (California, New York etc) which broadcasts his raunchy conversation on many of those same frequencies next to your favorite commercial music stations between 88-108 mhz.

Needless to say, that I have never cared for a cellular phone or the idea of broadcasting my personal business...

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Jul 4, 2008 - 2:19 PM

whenever the aclu takes up an issue, i support them 110%.

the aclu is just one of the few organizations that are true heroes of the american people.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 4, 2008 - 4:15 PM

LOL!

You might want to do a bit of research into the origins of the ACLU, and the stated philosophy and political agenda of its founder and its real purpose for being founded.

To quote Roger Baldwin: "We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the Sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Some things are NOT what they at first seem.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Jul 4, 2008 - 7:00 PM

social security, socialized medicine, etc... sounds like capitalism to me.

besides communism seems to be perfectly acceptable by capitolism as business's would love workers to labor without pay, like sprawl mart.

interestingly, monopolies and the internal arbitray policies companies have and are allowed to utilize are in themselves communistic - there is no democracy inside business's.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 4, 2008 - 7:49 PM

LOL! WHAT?!?!?!

May I suggest that you learn the meanings of the terms and how the various systems work before making such totally nonsensical claims.

There is more to this than simply reacting to the 'sound' of names!

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

edited Jul 5, 2008 - 3:14 PM

nothing new to learn.

employees do what they are told to do and if they don't like it then they have the freedom to leave. this is the only freedom inside of business's.

do you really think the military functions as a democratic organization?

do you really think that the commander in chief governs his office as a democracy.

perhaps, i might suggest for you to understand what socialism and communism because it is the foundation of capitalism.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 5, 2008 - 5:16 PM

ROFLMAO!

Rules constitute Socialism and Communism which form the foundation for Capitalism... LOL!!!!

You have nothing of substance to add.
But thanks for the laugh.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

edited Jul 6, 2008 - 10:27 AM

no problem. the more you laugh and argue the more we understand the degree of your intellect.

when you learn what it means to be an employee, then you can assert your wisdom of democracy to the owners of the business and your employers and dictate to them how to run their organizations in a democratic fashion.

you can then laugh yourself to the unemployment line. further you never been in the military and don't know the punishment for disobeying your superiors.

clearly you have absolutely no understanding of the system for running a business, office or governmental agency.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jul 6, 2008 - 3:23 PM

I have been in both genius.

And your contention that the existence of rules, policies and procedures rules constitute Socialism and Communism which form the foundation for Capitalism, and thus form a "system for running a business, office or governmental agency" are completely and utterly ludicrous - not to mention hilarious!

Rave on lunatic.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 3:55 PM

not a contention, simply fact and utterly simplistic and there is no lunacy involved.

"capitalism is not possible without a foundation of socialism and communism"

- employers don't pay employees to voice their opinions because a business is not a democracy.

- businesses have a central leader and the employees are paid to follow that leader and abide by the rules set by that leader.

- business's are protected by law if they want to pay its employees an unlivable minimal wage for labor. however as we all know there are some employers that prefer labor for free.

- further employers have no problem with paying its employees with an unlivable minimum wage and no benefits, while the business and its leaders earns millions in revenue.

-----------

sounds like all of the above is a lot like socialism and communism instead democracy.

unfortunately, i am not persuaded by your opinion about the ACLU and it seems that the world is somewhat skewed to you....

don't get me wrong, i am for democracy and capitalism.

but in order for these to endure they require a dash of socialism and a pinch of communism; because like ancient Rome, a pure democratic state and capitalistic empire is/are not sustainable.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 7, 2008 - 6:10 PM

keep tossing around terms without any inkling of their meaning.

But if its not democracy it must be like socialism of communism...

Now offer another rebuttal that simply changes the order of the misused and misunderstood words around yet one more time.

ROFLMAO!

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Jul 7, 2008 - 7:04 PM

inkling? the term is best left for the meek and uneducated and children, perhaps a term used by "silly girls".

your confusion is that you don't understand the true nature of world at large. these systems you ademently beleive that conflict with each other are actually dependent upon each other.

you may not see why socialist societies and communist societies are no longer sustainable without capitalism and embracing some democracy nor can you comprehend that socialism and communism are subsets within our own.

perhaps this final example will help you understand but many employees provide many hours of unpaid labor and do so if they want to keep their jobs, like people in finance. To some this is slavery and to others it is communism. But to the employer it is considered volunteering.

This system that is found in virtually all american business's is illegal but only if the worker wants to make an issue of it. However, in doing so, the worker cuts his own throat and will eventually find him/herself at the unemployment line.

in conclusion, the aclu does a lot more than you do on behalf of the people. until you become an advocate and a fighter to protect amercian from abuses, your opinions of the organization have no value to anyone.

--- nothing more to say.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jul 4, 2008 - 11:43 AM

"The overwhelming majority of Americans -- over 200 million people -- carry mobile phones. This large number is steadily increasing."

Nope.
The cell phone market WISHES such were true! The market is essentially saturated, with the primary business being that of generating churn from one provider to another and of selling upgrades in the form of new bells and whistles on phones.

"It's important to note, though, that if carriers are enabling cellular tracking -- whether for parents, friends or law enforcement officials -- any location data they're obtaining really refers to the phone itself, as opposed to the mobile subscriber.

Many cell phone owners don't carry their phones with them at all times. People also lose and temporarily misplace their phones, and loan them to family members and even casual acquaintances. Consequently, a cell phone's location isn't exactly a solid indicator of the actual current location of the owner of that phone. So beyond any privacy risks, there could be risks, too, of mistaken identity."

So it sounds to me that such information is all a red herring, as plenty of reasonable doubt exists to challenge the accuracy of such data that may be generated...

Such information in a particular case could be properly requested during discovery and the pertinence debated relevant to the particular case.

Score: 0