Obama's justice department claims warrantless wiretaps do not violate 4th amendment

• eersandbeers

  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.
  
  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 Tonyh 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.
  
  "This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
  
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
  
  
  This is definitely an area the Supreme Court needs to clear up. I have no idea how the government can eavesdrop into a conversation without a warrant.
• I Wear Pants

  Wonderful, he must have been talking to Bush. Both of them have no respect for privacy.
• tk421

  

  Unless I'm totally not reading that right, they weren't tapping into conversations and listening to them. They were getting records from the wireless companies that said when and where a call was made. I really don't see the problem.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  tk421 wrote: Unless I'm totally not reading that right, they weren't tapping into conversations and listening to them. They were getting records from the wireless companies that said when and where a call was made. I really don't see the problem.

  I would agree with this sentiment. Looking at a pattern of calls does not violate anyone's privacy.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  tk421 wrote: Unless I'm totally not reading that right, they weren't tapping into conversations and listening to them. They were getting records from the wireless companies that said when and where a call was made. I really don't see the problem.

  I would agree with this sentiment. Looking at a pattern of calls does not violate anyone's privacy.

  I didn't read the thing but upon reading it I have to agree. This case isn't such a big deal, but lately privacy actually has been taking a beating.
• Glory Days

  

  The article says nothing about listening in on conversations. This technology has been used to catch thousands of terrorist, i wonder if they overrule this, will they all go free if tried in a US court?
• bman618

  It's still somebodys record. It would be like going to the bank and demanding they hand over a list of your transactions without a warrant. I don't see what the big deal is about getting a warrant. Almost all of them are approved but it allows the judiciary to check potential government abuse (that's why a couple of percent of the warrants submitted are rejected). Courts have been set up for very quick approval.
  
  Too many people are watching 24 and think the government has two seconds to act. Terrorist attacks take months to plan and the bigger ones, like on 9/11, can take years to a decade.
  
  This way we protect liberty and can still go get the bad guys.
• eersandbeers

  I guess I misread this part of the story..
  
  "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."
  
  
  Either way, eavesdropping on cell phones would be next. If the Justice Department feels we have no "reasonable expectation to privacy" then why would they not take it a step further?
  
  And I don't believe phone companies are legally allowed providing logs on their customers without a warrant. Hence, the reason Congress passed a law granting them all immunity.
• Glory Days

  

  i guess the question is, what expectation of privacy do you have for your phone number, house address, or even computer IP address. if i look up someone's name in a phone book, you can find a phone number and house address in seconds for the most part(some people are unlisted). a landline phone number can identify where someone lives, a cell phone number can identify where some is located also. why should a cell phone be more private than a landline phone?
• ou1980

  Is it a direct violation of the US Constitution? Absolutely...
  
  Do I mind if it helps prevent a terrorist planting a bomb at Ohio Stadium, New York or wherever there's a target, then that's fine by me. I know some of you don't see it that way, but I do. They can listen to my calls as much as they want, idc.
  
  JMHO
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  ou1980 wrote: Is it a direct violation of the US Constitution? Absolutely...
  
  Do I mind if it helps prevent a terrorist planting a bomb at Ohio Stadium, New York or wherever there's a target, then that's fine by me. I know some of you don't see it that way, but I do. They can listen to my calls as much as they want, idc.
  
  JMHO

  +1. Just as long as what I've said is not used against me in some made up charges, then I could care less.
• eersandbeers

  Glory Days wrote: i guess the question is, what expectation of privacy do you have for your phone number, house address, or even computer IP address. if i look up someone's name in a phone book, you can find a phone number and house address in seconds for the most part(some people are unlisted). a landline phone number can identify where someone lives, a cell phone number can identify where some is located also. why should a cell phone be more private than a landline phone?

  They are obtaining phone records from where you are making calls from. Which basically means you are being tracked by your call logs. That's not the same thing as looking up your phone number in a phone book.
  
  And I can also be unlisted in a phone book.
• JoeA1010

  This thread is interesting because all of us don't fit as predictably as we seem to on other issues. I would strongly lean against this grant of power to the government, unless the government can show a likelihood of imminent danger without the warrantless search.
• Glory Days

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  Glory Days wrote: i guess the question is, what expectation of privacy do you have for your phone number, house address, or even computer IP address. if i look up someone's name in a phone book, you can find a phone number and house address in seconds for the most part(some people are unlisted). a landline phone number can identify where someone lives, a cell phone number can identify where some is located also. why should a cell phone be more private than a landline phone?

  They are obtaining phone records from where you are making calls from. Which basically means you are being tracked by your call logs. That's not the same thing as looking up your phone number in a phone book.
  
  And I can also be unlisted in a phone book.

  how is it not the same? what is the difference between the location of where landline calls are placed from and cell calls are placed from? both give away your location one way or another. why should cell phones be treated different from landline phones? i can track you by your landline, just do a reverse search on your number. only difference is that one doesnt change and the other does.
  
  i guess i also dont see the difference between a cop watching you walk down the street performing surveillance and a cop looking at a cell phone tower to see that you are walking down the street.
  
  going unlisted means you have taken steps to protect your privacy. now you have an expectation of that privacy. if you dont take those steps, you have no expectation. similar to not closing the curtains on your windows of your house. yes you have an expectation of privacy in your house, but if you leave the curtains open and a cop drives by on the street and sees you beating your wife, he can act even though it's in your home.
• Glory Days

  

  ou1980 wrote: Is it a direct violation of the US Constitution? Absolutely...
  
  Do I mind if it helps prevent a terrorist planting a bomb at Ohio Stadium, New York or wherever there's a target, then that's fine by me. I know some of you don't see it that way, but I do. They can listen to my calls as much as they want, idc.
  
  JMHO

  yeah i would say the method they used to catch the bank robbers was pretty smart. a warrant probably would have been tricky for that plan because they dont know the specific person or even number they want to locate.