Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.Given that cell phones are broadcasting on radio signals you probably should not have the same expectation of privacy since anyone can get a scanner and listen in. However, that shouldn't give the government carte blanche to do what they want with cell company data.
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong none of these really means a lot to you.
3 comments:
Oh, "no reasonable expectation of privacy, eh?"
So, after you attend a TEA Party event, as part of a large crowd, along with some of your friends, all of a sudden the political party in power decides you and you friends need to undergo an IRS audit . . . after a review of cellular records.
Is there anywhere else you might not want to be "on record" as having been at a particular time?
Yes, if you are a law-abiding citizen, you should have nothing to fear. And the "bad guys" can just go to Wal-Mart and purchase a totally untraceable, disposable cellphone with cash.
So, the ordinary cellphone user is tracked regularly and anyone with devious intentions gets a pass.
Great logic here!
Anon - been paranoid long? Believe it or not they're not all out to get you. It just seems like it sometimes.
Oh Rick,
First they came for the criminals and you did nothing for you were not a criminal. . .
Post a Comment