Technology often represents a double edged sword. While we can walk down any street or go to the local mall you will find kids as young as 10 to senior citizens on their cell phones calling friends and family around the globe. The exploding wireless technology has given us an unlimited choice from traditional cell phones to smart phones with 3 G high speed data networks for web browsing, mega pixel cameras to Blackberry, PDA’s and emails.
Sooner or later it was surely going to happen. Big brother wants to snoop on us regardless of whether or not we pose a threat to our National Security.
Keep your eyes on the following case listed for disposition by Circuit Judges Sloviter, Roth and Tashima in US Court of Appeals for the Third District (in western PA) that includes Arguments on # 08-4227.
“In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for An Order Directing A Provider of Electronic Communications Service To Disclose Records to the Government . United States of America, Appellant.”
This case involves the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
As reported by CNET News “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.”
In 1994 we passed the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act.
One of the “most widely publicized trials of the year, the prosecution of Scott Peterson for his wife Laci’s murder, the state introduced cell phone records in order to establish the defendent’s whereabouts. This Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Review goes on to say that “the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v Maryland that a defendent has no expectation of privacy as to the number he dials when using a phone. It is no surprise that law enforcement authorities can obtain at least certain information about cell phone calls without a warrant.” The author closes with a valid point. “However, what are the constrainsts on such access?”
Kevin Bankston, attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation has stated that “This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century. 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.”
Juice readers. Is the government stepping over the line with regards to our Bill of Rights on this issue?
I understand why they might want to not have to get a court order to track the location of a cell phone.
That said, I agree with the ACLU on this, a court order should be needed to have the records released to law enforcement or homeland security.
*Once the analog phones got trashed and put out of the system – it doesn’t even require anyone to search the spectrum anymore. It is easy as switching on you night light.
“Don’t leave home without it…” and
“You are free to travel about the country!”
Just make sure your 5 year old has a cell phone when you go shopping. Just in case you get lost!