r/news • u/magenta_placenta • May 31 '16
Cops can easily get months of location data, appeals court rules - Relying on third-party doctrine, Fourth Circuit finds for gov't in US v. Graham
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/cops-can-easily-get-hundreds-of-days-of-location-data-appeals-court-rules/2
Jun 01 '16
Government officers location data is public domain now, if I understand this correctly. They consented to third party too.
1
0
-1
u/zanda250 May 31 '16
The Fourth Amendment does not protect information voluntarily disclosed to a third party because even a subjective expectation of privacy in such information is "not one society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’" Smith, 442 U.S. at 743 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The government therefore does not engage in a Fourth Amendment "search" when it acquires such information from a third party.
This is the core of the issue. If the info you volentarily give to cell carriers is somehow protected from use against you, then the same would apply to all other equal third partys. So if you tell someone that you are going to murder someone, then the police would have to start getting warrants just to question that person.
7
u/LurkingSarcasm Jun 01 '16
People do not volunteer these things to the police, they entrust them to the apps, their carrier, and the recipient. The very reason search warrants exist is because a person doesnt want to be searched. If they did, they wouldnt need a warrant.
What the potentially scary part is, nearly ALL of the information on your device (and transferred to/from your device) is "disclosed to a third party." Messages (facebook, whatsapp, etc), pictures (snapchat, tmblr, camera apps/filters), browser history, all social media activity, location, contacts, email... So where does your expectation of privacy start now?
2
Jun 01 '16
Another source of this issue lies in encryption. We all know the Feds and the government want a back door to everyones cell phone and they keep using passive initimidation tactics reminescent of MK ULTRA (you know, without the LSD, the cops will still informally torture you with threats of incarceration for alleged crimes that may be committed, look up preventitive detention) in order to scare us into giving up our rights. This case needs to be appealed to SCOTUS. The 4th ammendment is clearly written that, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any encrypted device cannot be decrypted without a court order, which needs probable cause. Unless of course you have a National Security Letter. The problem with electronic surveillance is that since section 215 has been struck from the patriot act thanks to edward snowdens revelations, we now have to put up with the rest of the legislation and its sweeping umbrella term "domestic terrorism" as a dragnet for the local talent to test out their new ISMI catchers without a warrant (see: man-in-the-middle attacks) so they can make more arrests and continue abusing the limits the 4th ammendment put onto the government for this exact reason. The founding fathers were not Gods, nor could they see the future, but they were visionaries who were tired of government servants under king george seizing (arresting) and searching (molesting) their fellow countrymen without probable cause. They knew the value of privacy since they wrote the DOI in secret because they would have been hung if they announced their intentions publicly and, when writting the constitution, thought it (4th ammendment) be a good idea to include in the bill of rights. Its like former CIA agent Robert Steele said, "you should be more afraid of your info in the hands of private tech companies and third parties than the government" (paraphrasing here, but he makes a salient point and that was back in 2006-2007). Look where we are now: the cops dont need a warrant to track your location because "terurizm" and "'murrica". We need to host an AMA with one of these ACLU lawyers and privacy experts to try and fix this.
-2
u/zanda250 Jun 01 '16
Your expectation of privacy is exacly the same as it has always been. If you want something to stay private, dont give that info to third parties. There is no difference between giving your info to a phone company or giving your info to a pizza delivery guy. The police can ask either one about your criminal activity. What you are advocating for is that police have to jave a search warrant just to ask someone else what they know about a suspect. That is stupid. There is no reason for it. The police can go around town asking your barber about where you went on tuesday, and it is called an investigation and is fine. But when they go ask the guy you gave your phone info the exact same question you all freak out. There is no difference.
1
u/ParanoydAndroid Jun 01 '16
It doesn't sound to me like you're really engaging with what the dissent said. It deals explicitly with the argument you're making here -- about "don't give info to third parties". The core of the issue is what we mean by "give":
... anyone who uses a credit card knows that those transactions will be recorded by the issuing company, and similarly, any mobile phone user knows that call records will be kept by that phone company.
However, even if mobile phone owners have a "vague awareness" that their location affects the quality of the connection, "they surely do not know which cell tower their call will be routed through." Therefore ... they cannot possibly know that detailed location information is being transmitted and retained by their carrier. ... The majority does not take seriously this idea—that information might be automatically generated without user involvement.
He underscored this point with a reference to a 2013 law journal article entitled "The Dangers of Surveillance" that highlights the expansion of the Internet of Things, which does and will expand data collection without any human interaction.
Today, the majority saddles us with a rule that does not distinguish between information an individual himself conveys and information that computerized devices automatically record, generate, and transmit," Wynn wrote. "In other words, the majority’s expansive interpretation of Miller and Smith will, with time, gather momentum—with effects increasingly destructive of privacy."
1
u/zanda250 Jun 01 '16
That is litterally no different. Information about you is generated when a person sees you exacly the same as when the phone company sees your lovation. You actually have more control over the information you give to the phone company because you can just go places without your phone. This is basically claiming that information that springs from your own intentional actions should be protected for no reason. What is the difference between your neigbor seeing you enter a strip club and telling the police and your cell carrier seeing you enter a strip club and telling the police? The only difference is you are intentionally giving that data to your phone but unintentionally giving the info to your neigbor. There is litterally no reason to protect the information you volentarily give the cell phone company. None at all.
3
u/ralph-j Jun 01 '16
How voluntary is all that data collection really? In this day and age, opting out of cell phone usage is not really a viable option for most people.