AP: Justice Dept. wants phone locales without warrant.

[20score]

By MARYCLAIRE DALE (AP)
PHILADELPHIA — Should the government be allowed to track a person's movements based on cell phone records, without evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

A showdown on the issue unfolded Friday in a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, as the Justice Department battled electronic-privacy groups.

The privacy groups say the information could reveal when someone goes to a religious service, medical clinic or political rally, or is having an extramarital affair. Third U.S. Circuit Judge Dolores Sloviter seemed to share that concern.

"You know there are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been," Sloviter challenged Justice Department lawyer Mark Eckenwiler, an associate director of criminal enforcement operations.

"Can the government assure us that it will never try to find out these things?" she asked. "Don't we have to be concerned about this? Not this government right now, but a government?"

Law enforcement agencies hope to obtain cell phone location data from cellular providers without first showing probable cause of a crime — and without the customer's knowledge. The data comes from cell phone towers, and in densely populated cities can pinpoint a person's location to within a few hundred yards.

The issue is not whether the government can obtain the information, but whether a probable-cause warrant should be required first.

"An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company," Eckenwiler wrote in his brief.

Sloviter countered by asking Eckenwiler why there was a need to skip a probable-cause showing, saying that she knew no magistrates reluctant to grant search warrant applications.

He replied that the relevant law does not require them. Eckenwiler said probable-cause warrants are only needed to obtain the contents of electronic communications, such as a text or e-mail, or to wiretap a phone. He believes the 1986 Electronics Communications Privacy Act allows police to obtain "non-content" data without a warrant.

After Friday's hearing, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chief author of the 1986 law, said his committee would revisit the legislation this year.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjCPfFdmocBeGyr_-lqmLC_3CfcAD9DQS4Q84

[upi402]

1. Thank the cloud beings for electronic privacy groups

That's one 'group' I don't mind donating to.

[MadHound]

2. This is about the third time I mentioned this, but nobody seems to understand

This has been going on for at least five years now. Private corporations have been tracking cell phones for "traffic control" purposes, first in big cities, then in smaller metro areas, now reaching out to the rural areas.

And of course since this is for "traffic control", the information is shared with police already.

Now then, initially you could avoid this by turning your cell phone off. But newer phones now have the capability to act as a tracking beacon, even while they are off. Your only option is to either not carry a phone or to take the battery out.

The sad thing about all of this is that we the people are paying for our own shackles. We buy cell phones and On Star, and those fine home security systems that have sensors inside the home, all the better to track what you do inside your own four walls.

[ihavenobias]

3. K & R n/t

[20score]

4. This is the nightmare that people, Sci Fi authors etc., have been warning about for decades.

[Echo In Light]

5. Fascist country

[20score]

9. Moving very fast in that direction.

[endless october]

6. get a warrant. nt

[suede1]

7. Saw this coming. But this is very important!

[20score]

8. I may have just missed this news, but has this been posted on DU prior to today?

[20score]

10. Kick for an answer.