Federal Judge Approves Warrantless, Covert Video Surveillance

[ElNono]

"Your curtilage may be your castle, but 'open fields' are open game for law-enforcement and surveillance technology. Whether 'No Trespassing' signs are present or not, your private property is public for the law, with or without a warrant. What the police cannot do, their cameras can — without warrant or court oversight. An article at CNET recounts a case involving the DEA, a federal judge, and two defendants (since charged) who were subjected to video surveillance on private property without a warrant (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/). Presumably, the 4th Amendment suffers an obscure form of agoraphobia further elucidated in the article."

[boutons_deux]

How Telecoms Sell Your Private Info to the Highest Bidder
Have you ever lost your mobile phone and been able to find it through your wireless company’s GPS tracking service? Or have you signed up for a family locator program to check on where your kids are through their phones? If so, you’ve voluntarily entered the world of telco tracking. Unfortunately, these are but the most innocent tracking programs that wireless companies like AT&T and Verizon are engaged in.


Every seven seconds or so, one’s wireless company tracks your position vis-à-vis the nearest cell tower, determining not only your location but how long your call lasts. What a phone company does with this data, let alone with all the other information it gathers, remains the company’s secret.


Earlier this year, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) revealed that, in 2011, state and local law enforcement agencies had received approximately 1.3 million records from the nation’s wireless carriers. A wireless customer’s personal information provided to law enforcement entities is fairly comprehensive. It includes geo-locational or GPS data, 911 call responses, text message content, billing records, wiretaps, “ping” location and what are known as cell tower “dumps” (i.e., a carrier provides all the phones numbers of cell users that connect with a discrete tower during a discrete period of time). [3]


Equally insidious, these same wireless providers are aggressively collecting and reselling your usage data. The most widely used method is through a special GPS geo-location program offered by Carrier IQ known as CIQ.

"Data is the new oil," declared Bill Diggins, a Verizon Wireless exec in charge of the telco’s latest data aggregation program, Precision Marketing Insights (PMI). Verizon, along with Sprint, introduced its initial device tracking service in 2007.


But PMI goes further. According to Diggins: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on their handsets.” He offered the following example: “If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."


Other wireless executives share Diggins' enthusiasm for data collection. Sprint company spokesperson Stephanie Vinge Walsh champions the power of the telecos: “We think it’s a benefit to receive ads targeting your interests rather than ads which may not be relevant.”


Verizon’s PMI program allows it to collect user data from devices running on either an Android or an Apple OS (operating system). According to Verizon, the data collected includes what products and services a consumer is using (e.g., device type, calling features and usage patterns), what apps are on the device and GPS location. In addition, it collects a host of demographic and psychographic information “such as gender, age range, sports fan, frequent diner, or pet owner."


Further, the company acknowledges that all the collected information can be combined into "aggregated and marketing reports." In turn, these reports can be sold to third-party entities like data aggregators and direct marketing firms. However, it insists: "We may combine this information in a manner that does not personally identify you." Some reports indicated that Verizon provides a customer’s home address to third parties.


Diggins identified the company’s long-term goal as insinuating itself into a customer’s mobile wallet. “So we’re able to identify what that customer likes not by filling out forms but by actually analyzing what they do on a day to day basis and serve them with products we know they like because we’ve seen they’ve downloaded and purchased products like that.”


Pulling the curtain further aside, Diggins reveals the underlying rationale of Verizon’s data collection effort: “We’re doing this on a one-to-one basis even though we’re marketing on an aggregate anonymous because we’re able to just view everything they [users] do.”


Not to be undone, AT&T actively collects user data. It introduced its FamilyMap program to track the location of any cell phone on AT&T's network in 2009. On its AdWorks site, AT&T promotes its capabilities to "reach customized audience segments based on anonymous and aggregate demographics."


AT&T insists it doesn’t sell personal data to third parties. Rather, it offers "[third parties] products and services, packages, discounts and promotions from the AT&T companies, such as High Speed DSL Internet access, wireless service and U-verse TV services, which may be different from the types of services you already purchase.”


AT&T provides “location information” to Sense Networks, a company analyzing mobile location data for advertising. One of its products, CitySense, highlights local nightspots to customers based on cellphone usage.


"Because cell phones have become so ubiquitous,” notes Ramón Cáceres, a researcher at AT&T's labs in Florham Park, NJ, “mining the data they generate can really revolutionize the study of human behavior."

http://www.alternet.org/print/civil-liberties/how-telecoms-sell-your-private-info-highest-bidder

If the govt does it, OUTRAGE!

If the sacred, beloved, pinnacle-of-human-civilization corporations do it, YAWN!

[Wild Cobra]

Simple.

Don't buy a cell phone.

[LnGrrrR]

Simple.

Don't buy a cell phone.

What kind of answer is this for a supposed "libertarian"?

"Hey, if you don't want the government tracking you on your cell phone, don't buy a cell phone!"

[Spurminator]

Simple.

Don't buy a cell phone.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

Yeah and if you don't want the Government or companies intruding on your home, don't buy a house. Really, if you're anything more than a total nomad, you're getting what you deserve. FREEDOM! AMERICA!

[Jacob1983]

Where are the Obama lovers? I want to see them defend their guy on this shit.

[Wild Cobra]

What kind of answer is this for a supposed "libertarian"?

"Hey, if you don't want the government tracking you on your cell phone, don't buy a cell phone!"
If someone is going to believe the speculation here, then why not give a silly answer?

Corporations are full of "peanut counters." Need I say more?

[boutons_deux]

If someone is going to believe the speculation here, then why not give a silly answer?

Corporations are full of "peanut counters." Need I say more?

As the article I posted said, "data is the new oil". Beancounters love the money from selling data.

[RandomGuy]

"Your curtilage may be your castle, but 'open fields' are open game for law-enforcement and surveillance technology. Whether 'No Trespassing' signs are present or not, your private property is public for the law, with or without a warrant. What the police cannot do, their cameras can — without warrant or court oversight. An article at CNET recounts a case involving the DEA, a federal judge, and two defendants (since charged) who were subjected to video surveillance on private property without a warrant (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/). Presumably, the 4th Amendment suffers an obscure form of agoraphobia further elucidated in the article."

Hmmm.

If a police cruiser is driving by your front yard, and sees you committing a crime, even with a "no trespassing" sign, do they then need a warrant to arrest you?

How would this be then different than a camera? Does the law only get to be enforced within the physical proximity of a law enforcement official?

tricky issue.

[RandomGuy]

Where are the Obama lovers? I want to see them defend their guy on this shit.

What is there to defend?

For that matter what attack is there to make?

Or are you here to ring doorbells and run away?

[boutons_deux]

Where are the Obama lovers? I want to see them defend their guy on this shit.

How is Barry responsible for whatever privacy violatons the UCA commits? the UCA is mostly untouchable since the UCA owns the govt.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmmm.

If a police cruiser is driving by your front yard, and sees you committing a crime, even with a "no trespassing" sign, do they then need a warrant to arrest you?

How would this be then different than a camera? Does the law only get to be enforced within the physical proximity of a law enforcement official?

tricky issue.

I would argue that, yes, the law enforcement official does make it a different matter. By using an actual person, you're ensuring that only cases that are likely to be resolved are being monitored. If you allow full-time monitoring of a large number of homes, you'll waste time/data in most cases by spreading the net too far. That's the problem with most of the DHS data collecting... it's so wide that it wastes resources tracing down unlikely leads.

[LnGrrrR]

If someone is going to believe the speculation here, then why not give a silly answer?

Corporations are full of "peanut counters." Need I say more?


What "speculation" is there to believe? The gov't has repeatedly requested for, and received, private data from telecomms and other industries. To imagine it won't happen in the future is to put blinders on.

[Wild Cobra]

What "speculation" is there to believe? The gov't has repeatedly requested for, and received, private data from telecomms and other industries. To imagine it won't happen in the future is to put blinders on.
Yes. You have a problem with the disclosure you sign saying they have a right to disclose to 3rd parties? My problem is when the 3rd parties are advertisers.

[johnsmith]

How is Barry responsible for whatever privacy violatons the UCA commits? the UCA is mostly untouchable since the UCA owns the govt.

Same reason he's responsible for oil prices.....he's not.....but everyone needs to be pissed at someone.

[Wild Cobra]

They have to request it. They don't monitor it. They can get phone records before from land lines, they can get credit card information, real estate information, etc. etc. etc.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes. You have a problem with the disclosure you sign saying they have a right to disclose to 3rd parties? My problem is when the 3rd parties are advertisers.

:lol So you don't mind when the 3rd party is the US gov't, but when it is instead advertisers. WC the libertarian!

[Wild Cobra]

:lol So you don't mind when the 3rd party is the US gov't, but when it is instead advertisers. WC the libertarian!
It still comes via a request. You think law enforcement is going to waste time requesting shit on people for no reason?

[LnGrrrR]

It still comes via a request. You think law enforcement is going to waste time requesting shit on people for no reason?

Uhm... yes? Heck, just general mistakes alone over the past ten years have led to the wrong people being put on no-fly lists, the wrong people having their privacy invaded, etc etc. Even this Petraeus scandal brings up a good point over just how much power the FBI has.

Oh, and those "requests" aren't very vigorously checked. I don't recall the exact numbers, but there were very few dismissals (less than a hundred) over the thousand-plus requests for information under the NSA letters.

[Winehole23]

LE bureaucracies get vast bona fides from WC, pissants like you and me, none.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/screen_shot_2012-11-09_at_3.01.54_pm.png

Police to End Prostitution and Drugs With Creepy New Spy Mobile
http://www.alternet.org/police-end-prostitution-and-drugs-creepy-new-spy-mobile

:lol

[Winehole23]

that's funny to you? explains a lot.

[boutons_deux]

that's funny to you? explains a lot.

yes, it's :lol

prostitution and drugs are UNSTOPPABLE, but the stupid police keep on chasing it.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, the FBI and CIA can read your email. Here's how
http://www.zdnet.com/yes-the-fbi-and-cia-can-read-your-email-heres-how-7000007319/?s_cid=e539

[Jacob1983]

Obama koolaid drinkers, defend your guy on basically giving himself unconstitutional and illegal powers when it comes to surveillance. Step up. You blasted Bush for this shit but you have no problem with Barry doing this. This is a fuckin' joke. Obama lovers bashed the shit out of Bush 24/7 for the war in Iraq yet they blindly support his love for drones. Hypocrites!

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see anyone blindly supporting his "love of drones."

Link.

[ElNono]

Hmmm.

If a police cruiser is driving by your front yard, and sees you committing a crime, even with a "no trespassing" sign, do they then need a warrant to arrest you?

How would this be then different than a camera? Does the law only get to be enforced within the physical proximity of a law enforcement official?

tricky issue.

The difference is obviously actual surveillance vs a casual encounter. The question here is whether LE can actually walk into your private property and install surveillance equipment to spy on you without a warrant.

IMO, per the 4th amendment, that constitutes a search within private property and requires a warrant.

[ElNono]

What obviously stinks even more in this particular case is that they did obtain a warrant 4 days after they recorded the video. So obtaining the warrant wasn't, apparently, a problem.

Another read on this would be that LE went on a illegal fishing expedition, and once they found something, they expedited the warrant they should've acquired in the first place.

[SA210]

Obama koolaid drinkers, defend your guy on basically giving himself unconstitutional and illegal powers when it comes to surveillance. Step up. You blasted Bush for this shit but you have no problem with Barry doing this. This is a fuckin' joke. Obama lovers bashed the shit out of Bush 24/7 for the war in Iraq yet they blindly support his love for drones. Hypocrites!


Internet husband Obama

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549149_451527118218128_1175787956_n.jpg

[Winehole23]

Amarillo appeals court: 'A cell phone is not a pair of pants' (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/11/amarillo-appeals-court-cell-phone-is.html)
The Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo in a recent opinion (http://www.7thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=15334) (pdf) addressed the question, "May an officer conduct a warrantless search of the contents or stored data in a cell phone when its owner was required to relinquish possession of the phone as part of the booking or jailing process?" They said "No," at least barring "exigent circumstances or other recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." Here's how attorney-blogger Paul Kennedy described the gist of the ruling (http://kennedy-law.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-cell-phone-is-not-pair-of-pants.html):

In State v. Granville (http://www.7thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=15334), No. 07-11-0415-CR (Tex.App.-- Amarillo 2012), the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the warrantless search of a cell phone by a "stranger to an arrest" violates the Fourth Amendment. In its opinion, the court explained, in detail, why a cell phone is not a pair of pants.

The court explained that a cell phone is more like a computer and that the information contained within the memory of a cell phone provides a glimpse into the private life of the owner and that the use of passwords, encrypted programs and other security measures gave the user a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court also took note that Mr. Granville's phone had to be turned on by the officer who decided he needed to snoop around and look at the photos stored on the phone. The fact that the phone had been turned off was another indication that Mr. Granville had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Finally the court addressed the issue of whether a pre-trial detainee (arrestee) has a privacy interest in his cell phone. Mr. Granville was arrested for a Class C misdemeanor (for those outside the Lone Star State, that is the equivalent of a traffic ticket). He was not going to be held in custody for long and he certainly wasn't the type of person that the ordinary citizen would think should be locked up. The court stated that, because a pre-trial detainee has the opportunity to post bond and get released that he has a greater privacy interest in his personal property than an inmate.

I leave y'all with this quote from the opinion:

While assaults upon the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 9 of the United States and Texas Constitutions regularly occur, the one rebuffed by the trial court here is sustained. A cell phone is not a pair of pants.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/11/amarillo-appeals-court-cell-phone-is.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What kind of answer is this for a supposed "libertarian"?

"Hey, if you don't want the government tracking you on your cell phone, don't buy a cell phone!"

Because he is not a libertarian, obviously. His blind support of his political party with convenient assumptions supporting ideology despite protests to the contrary combined with his blatant racism and support of the eugenics of Galton smacks more of fascism than it does a libertarian ideal.

He just spouts this because of his parties of choice Grover Norquist schtick. He is a blind supprter of the ideologies of his party of choice to the exclusion of all other reason. He is a minion in every sense of the word.

This is not hyperbole either; if you think about it: everything I am saying is true. WC is not dangerous in and of himself. He lacks charisma and anything resembling initiative of thought but he could very easily be the pawn of dangerous men with his blatant excusemaking for both party and ideology.

[DMC]

What's odd about this thread is that a warrant is issued by a judge in the first place, so if one "approves" it's for all intents and purposes a warrant.

[DMC]

Yes, the FBI and CIA can read your email. Here's how


http://www.zdnet.com/yes-the-fbi-and-cia-can-read-your-email-heres-how-7000007319/?s_cid=e539

So can many 14 year olds if they wanted to.

[velik_m]

I would argue that, yes, the law enforcement official does make it a different matter. By using an actual person, you're ensuring that only cases that are likely to be resolved are being monitored. If you allow full-time monitoring of a large number of homes, you'll waste time/data in most cases by spreading the net too far. That's the problem with most of the DHS data collecting... it's so wide that it wastes resources tracing down unlikely leads.

They are not wasted, you can narrow the data once you decide whose monitoring is important: eg. once you decide LnGrrrR needs to be punished you pull up all his data and find every time he broke a law.

[Winehole23]

When a cellphone is reported stolen in New York, the Police Department routinely subpoenas the phone’s call records, from the day of the theft onward. The logic is simple: If a thief uses the phone, a list of incoming and outgoing calls could lead to the suspect.



But in the process, the Police Department (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/home.shtml) has quietly amassed a trove of telephone logs, all obtained without a court order, that could conceivably be used for any investigative purpose.


The call records from the stolen cellphones are integrated into a database known as the Enterprise Case Management System, according to Police Department documents from the detective bureau. Each phone number is hyperlinked, enabling detectives to cross-reference it against phone numbers in other files.


The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred, three detectives said in interviews.


Police officials declined to say how many phone records are contained in the database, or how often they might have led to arrests. But police documents suggest that thousands of subpoenas have been issued each year, with each encompassing anywhere from dozens to hundreds of phone calls.


For example, T-Mobile, which has a smaller market share than some of its competitors, like Verizon, fulfilled 297 police subpoenas issued in January 2012, according to a police document.


To date, phone companies have appeared willing to accede to the Police Department’s requests for large swaths of call records. Memos issued Sept. 28 by the chief of detectives, Phil T. Pulaski, instruct detectives to prepare subpoenas for stolen phones assigned to AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or Metro-PCS. With these carriers, the police do not generally seek the victims’ consent; in fact, the subpoenas are executed without the victims’ knowledge. (It does not appear that subpoenas are issued when the stolen phone is served by Sprint Nextel. In those cases, detectives are instructed to ask the victim to fill out consent forms that authorize Sprint Nextel to release call records and location information to the police.)


“If large amounts of victim phone records are being collected and added to a searchable database, it’s very troubling,” said Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represents wireless carriers, in a phone interview.


“We’re all used to the concept of growing databases of criminal information,” Mr. Sussmann, of the firm Perkins Coie (http://www.perkinscoie.com/), said, “but now you’re crossing over that line and drawing in victim information.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/nyregion/new-york-city-police-amassing-a-trove-of-cellphone-logs.html?_r=1&

[Winehole23]

Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial “stingray” cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device’s manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts.


The shocking revelation, uncovered by the American Civil Liberties Union, came during an appeal over a 2008 sexual battery case in Tallahassee in which the suspect also stole the victim’s cell phone. Using the stingray — which simulates a cell phone tower in order to trick nearby mobile devices into connecting to it and revealing their location — police were able to track him to an apartment.


During proceedings in the case, authorities revealed that they had used the equipment at least 200 additional times since 2010 without disclosing this to courts and obtaining a warrant.


Although the specific device and manufacturer are identified in neither the one court document available for the 2008 case, nor in a video of a court proceeding, the ACLU says in a blog post today (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/police-hide-use-cell-phone-tracker-courts-because) that the device is “likely a stingray made by the Florida-based Harris Corporation.”


Harris is the leading maker of stingrays in the U.S., and the ACLU has long suspected that the company has been loaning the devices to police departments throughout the state for product testing and promotional purposes. As the court document notes in the 2008 case, “the Tallahassee Police Department is not the owner of the equipment.”


The ACLU now suspects these police departments may have all signed non-disclosure agreements with the vendor and used the agreement to avoid disclosing their use of the equipment to courts.


“The police seem to have interpreted the agreement to bar them even from revealing their use of Stingrays to judges, who we usually rely on to provide oversight of police investigations,” the ACLU writes.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/03/stingray/

[Winehole23]

The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.


This is the first time, however, that a contract with the vendor has been cited as a reason for not obtaining a warrant.

same