They know where you are.......

[JCJRSmith]

I think one of the points being missed here is the "government" is not tracking the cell phone locations - the cell phone companies are. They are doing this already, and some maintain that data for a year or more. The DoJ is arguing in court that they want access to this data without a warrant and they want the courts to agree that they do not need a warrant to access this data.

Search warrants are one of the vehicles we have that are in place to guarantee our rights under the 4th amendment.

Now, I already know that with today's technology, if the government really wants information about my whereabouts thru cell phone tracking, or if they really want information about the books I get at the library or from my local bookstore, or if they want my banking info, or my medical info, or the info my ISP may or may not have about my internet habits, they can get it. BUT, they can't do so without first justifying to a judge WHY they want this info. It is part of the system of Checks and Balances between the three branches of government.

This is the important part, folks: The DoJ wants to obtain the cell phone info WITHOUT a warrant, basically eliminating one of those checks and balances.

Do you really want any government agency to able to operate in secrecy in matters affecting those who are governed?

 

[shrubber]

Case law examples, please.

Here is just one

In 1976, Seattle residents discovered local police were spying on organizations of black construction workers, local Republican Party operatives, Native Americans, advocates for low-income housing and other activists whose conduct was perfectly lawful. In response to the revelations, the ACLU, along with the American Friends Service Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, formed the Coalition on Government Spying. After several years of hard work and lobbying, the coalition succeeded in bringing about passage of a comprehensive municipal law — the first of its kind in the country — that governs all police investigations and restricts the collection of political, religious and sexual information.

Called the Seattle Police Intelligence Ordinance, this law is a model for responsible police intelligence operations —

"Restricted" information (i.e., about religious, political or sexual activity) can be collected only if a person is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime, and the information must be relevant to that crime.


An independent civilian "auditor," appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, must review all police authorizations to collect restricted information and have access to all other police files. The auditor must notify the police officers who are the subjects of the unlawful investigations if violations are found.


Any individual subjected to unlawful surveillance can bring a civil action in court to stop the surveillance, and to collect damages from the city.

 

[shrubber]

I think one of the points being missed here is the "government" is not tracking the cell phone locations - the cell phone companies are. They are doing this already, and some maintain that data for a year or more. The DoJ is arguing in court that they want access to this data without a warrant and they want the courts to agree that they do not need a warrant to access this data.

Search warrants are one of the vehicles we have that are in place to guarantee our rights under the 4th amendment.

Now, I already know that with today's technology, if the government really wants information about my whereabouts thru cell phone tracking, or if they really want information about the books I get at the library or from my local bookstore, or if they want my banking info, or my medical info, or the info my ISP may or may not have about my internet habits, they can get it. BUT, they can't do so without first justifying to a judge WHY they want this info. It is part of the system of Checks and Balances between the three branches of government.

This is the important part, folks: The DoJ wants to obtain the cell phone info WITHOUT a warrant, basically eliminating one of those checks and balances.

Do you really want any government agency to able to operate in secrecy in matters affecting those who are governed?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I've got on-star.

So if I'm on the lam, on-star will no where I am at, but it requires a warrant or something.

The cell phone is the least of my worries since they'll have my get away car pinned down to the latitude/longitude.

 

[scrapquitler]

To me, it is the quiet erosion of rights that bothers me. Our country has fought long and hard for basic rights and it seems wrong to let these things just slip by with a "who cares" attitude, no matter under which administration it occurs.

Many wars have been fought over such things that we take for granted.

Exactly my thoughts!

 

[FireDancer]

This is a pretty hot button issue in the technology community along with issues like opt-in vs. opt-out, location aware applications, default privacy settings, and the sort.

The consensus usually comes down to whether or not you can be tracked but whether or not a warrant is needed to get the tracking information. Even more important is if the information gathered is admissible in court.

Privacy is very different now than it used to be because our locations are pretty much transmitted one way or another. The ISP you are using to post to the DIS knows exactly where you are (unless you are proxied) and that information can be obtained via warrant. Even annonomized (a apposed to anonymous) information can be used to determine the originator of the information.

I think, while it is unfortunate, Scott McNealy was right when he said "You already have zero privacy, get over it."

 

[eliza61]

To me, it is the quiet erosion of rights that bothers me. Our country has fought long and hard for basic rights and it seems wrong to let these things just slip by with a "who cares" attitude, no matter under which administration it occurs.

Many wars have been fought over such things that we take for granted.

Our country evolves. This country never, ever supported "Basic rights". The Constitution that I love and the declaration of Independance were written while at the very same time it enslaved 1/2 it's population.

One of these wars, was written for the express purpose to keep 1/2 of it's citizens enslaved.

You can't use 150 year old measuring stick to guide the country today. I'm just not buying that having a cell phone means unlawful search and invasion of privacy. Sorry I just don't see it as a big step toward some mythological "big brother is watching me" or some one is shadowing my every move situation

We have always had a hard time living up to "land of the Free"

 

[sbell111]

There is that whole 4th admendment thing you know.

Searching for my location, without a warrant, is UNREASONABLE. It violates the 4th admendment.

You are misapplying the 4th Amendment.

Is there a law that protects my privacy?

If you can find one, I'd love to see the citation.

I'm trying to understand why the idea of this is okay to some folks. Is it that it seems more far away and abstract due to the technological aspect of it? What if it were more obvious - say, if you were actually being followed? An actual person was just following you around and jotting down everywhere you went - would that make a difference? I'm truly curious here.

It would not violate my rights if the police followed me around. Why would I believe it to be a violation for them to do it electronically?

To me, it is the quiet erosion of rights that bothers me.

What bothers me is when people cite 'the quiet erosion of rights' about things that were never 'rights'.

Here is just one ...

That is a case about collecting restricted information. The location of your celphone is not 'restricted'.

 

[shrubber]

Sbell

I do not beleive you understand how our Federal system is supposed to work.
The 4th admendment is not missapplied here, it in fact directly pertains
There are no list of RIGHTS that the Constitution declares we are all welcome to, it simply lists what the Federal Government CANNOT do. If it's not on those 5 pages, the 10th admendment applies.
It really should be as simple as that.

You are misapplying the 4th Amendment.

If you can find one, I'd love to see the citation.

It would not violate my rights if the police followed me around. Why would I believe it to be a violation for them to do it electronically?

What bothers me is when people cite 'the quiet erosion of rights' about things that were never 'rights'.

That is a case about collecting restricted information. The location of your celphone is not 'restricted'.

 

[wenrob]

Here's the thing (and pardon me if this has already been mentioned) but in order to use cell phone tracking against you they'd have to A)prove you were actually carrying it with you and B)prove you were the person who actually used it. Now unless this tracking comes with video and audio complete with voice analysis I don't see how we have anything to worry about. What would they have to use against you? That you may or may not have been carrying/using your cell phone? And...?

The chip thing, not a good idea. If Grandma wants to voluntarily wear a portable GPS I'm all for it. But permanently implant a chip? No way. Though my dog has one and so far no one has tracked him down and accused him of any crimes.

 

[shrubber]

If you can find one, I'd love to see the citation.

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

 

[shrubber]

Here's the thing (and pardon me if this has already been mentioned) but in order to use cell phone tracking against you they'd have to A)prove you were actually carrying it with you and B)prove you were the person who actually used it. Now unless this tracking comes with video and audio complete with voice analysis I don't see how we have anything to worry about. What would they have to use against you? That you may or may not have been carrying/using your cell phone? And...?

The chip thing, not a good idea. If Grandma wants to voluntarily wear a portable GPS I'm all for it. But permanently implant a chip? No way. Though my dog has one and so far no one has tracked him down and accused him of any crimes.

It is not a question of wether someone will or will not track your location for nefarious purposes. It is a question of can they track and search your location without probable cause or a warrant.
As of today, the Government says , they do not need a warrant, or even a reason, to track the location of your cell phone ( and implicitly, you )

 

[Barbossa]

You can't use 150 year old measuring stick to guide the country today. I'm just not buying that having a cell phone means unlawful search and invasion of privacy. Sorry I just don't see it as a big step toward some mythological "big brother is watching me" or some one is shadowing my every move situation

Big Brother is watching you in ways that our forefathers never imagined. No one should be so naiive as to think that government, employers, creditors etc. aren't researching everything they can about you via the most powerful resource in history: The Internet. Take Facebook, for example. All it takes is some person posting to your Wall that he/she saw you doing something that may be construed as improper. People have been fired or denied employment because companies discover this information. (Which is one of many reasons I don't use Facebook.)

 

[Barbossa]

There are no list of RIGHTS that the Constitution declares we are all welcome to, it simply lists what the Federal Government CANNOT do.

The word right(s) appears 12 times in the the first 10 amendments which, by the way, is called The Bill of Rights.

 

[okeydokey]

Doesn't bother me at all. Nice to know If I or my family goes missing they are able to find me via my cell phone. I think that would be great.

 

[shrubber]

Our country evolves. This country never, ever supported "Basic rights". The Constitution that I love and the declaration of Independance were written while at the very same time it enslaved 1/2 it's population.

One of these wars, was written for the express purpose to keep 1/2 of it's citizens enslaved.

You can't use 150 year old measuring stick to guide the country today. I'm just not buying that having a cell phone means unlawful search and invasion of privacy. Sorry I just don't see it as a big step toward some mythological "big brother is watching me" or some one is shadowing my every move situation

We have always had a hard time living up to "land of the Free"

This is wrong on so many levels.
First off the 150 year old yardstick? If you mean the Constitution, it's well over 220 years old....

written while at the very same time it enslaved 1/2 it's population.

Not even close!!! there were about 3 million people here in the late 1700's and approximentally 50,000 were slaves....

This country never, ever supported "Basic rights".

That is just sad to read, really...

One of these wars, was written for the express purpose to keep 1/2 of it's citizens enslaved.

I can only guess what you are talking about here, but I am certain that whatever it is, you are wrong

 

[eliza61]

This is wrong on so many levels.
First off the 150 year old yardstick? If you mean the Constitution, it's well over 220 years old....

written while at the very same time it enslaved 1/2 it's population.

Not even close!!! there were about 3 million people here in the late 1700's and approximentally 50,000 were slaves....

This country never, ever supported "Basic rights".

That is just sad to read, really...

One of these wars, was written for the express purpose to keep 1/2 of it's citizens enslaved.

I can only guess what you are talking about here, but I am certain that whatever it is, you are wrong

Oops sorry about the error in numbers I'm sure the 50,000 that were enslaved and the over 600,000 Africans who were shipped to American really care if the numbers are off a bit. I'm sure they were extremely happy that those other 2 million people were able to enjoy their "freedom". and I can only imagine that 4 million slaves that were counted in the 1860 census really were happy that we had a declaration of Independance or a constitution. I know as a child of civil rights it wasn't worth the paper it was drawn on when I was growing up except to remind me of what I couldn't have.

But your right it is sad that we have yet to live up to the ideals in any of our historical documents.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is wrong on so many levels.
First off the 150 year old yardstick? If you mean the Constitution, it's well over 220 years old....

written while at the very same time it enslaved 1/2 it's population.

Not even close!!! there were about 3 million people here in the late 1700's and approximentally 50,000 were slaves....

This country never, ever supported "Basic rights".

That is just sad to read, really...

One of these wars, was written for the express purpose to keep 1/2 of it's citizens enslaved.

I can only guess what you are talking about here, but I am certain that whatever it is, you are wrong

The history behind why they never included banning slavery is interesting. I apologize for not knowing all of it.

But outside of her very off numbers---

I would guess the person is referring to the Civil War when the southern states wished to secede from the union. All surrounding the issue of slavery. I'm sure you know the specifics.

But the war was our nation--against the other part of the nation wanting to not be in this nation. So the premise that the war was to keep slavery. Not entirely accurate.

 

[shrubber]

The word right(s) appears 12 times in the the first 10 amendments which, by the way, is called The Bill of Rights.

Fer cryin out loud,

The Bill of Rights does NOT GRANT YOU RIGHTS!!!!

The first ten admendments GUARANTEE that the Government can not take these rights away from you!!!!( they had to put these in to get the whole thing ratified or a bunch of States were not going to vote for it )

All other rights are UNALIENABLE and divined by God.

 

[sbell111]

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

You might note that no where in your list of so-called privacy rights did you include your celphone's right to keep it's location secret from the gubmint.