Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking

[LnGrrrR]

And the whole PRISM program is what people like ElNono, WH23 and I feared (and expected) was out there.

[Winehole23]

Today the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS device to a car and track its movements. The case, United States v. Katzin, is the first in which a federal appeals court has explicitly held that a warrant is required for GPS tracking by police. The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case (joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and presented oral argument to the court in March.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology...rrant-required

[Winehole23]

Supreme Court weighs in:

If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.


The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that state’s high court. The Court’s short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.

“It doesn’t matter what the context is, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...arched/389114/

[Winehole23]

technology moves faster than the law:

Thousands of jails and prisons across the United States use a company called Securus Technologies to provide and monitor calls to inmates. But the former sheriff of Mississippi County, Mo., used a lesser-known Securus service to track people’s cellphones, including those of other officers, without court orders, according to charges filed against him in state and federal court...Between 2014 and 2017, the sheriff, Cory Hutcheson, used the service at least 11 times, prosecutors said. His alleged targets included a judge and members of the State Highway Patrol. Mr. Hutcheson, who was dismissed last year in an unrelated matter, has pleaded not guilty in the surveillance cases.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/t...forcement.html

[Winehole23]

“Securus is neither a judge nor a district attorney, and the responsibility of ensuring the legal adequacy of supporting do entation lies with our law enforcement customers and their counsel,” the spokesman said in a statement.

[Winehole23]

Courts are split on whether investigators need a warrant based on probable cause to acquire location data. In some states, a warrant is required for any sort of cellphone tracking. In other states, it is needed only if an investigator wants the data in real time. And in others no warrant is needed at all.


The Justice Department has said its policy is to get warrants for real-time tracking. The Supreme Court has ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a car counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment, but this was because installing the device involved touching a person’s property — something that doesn’t happen when a cellphone is pinged.

[boutons_deux]

Service Meant to Monitor Inmates’ Calls Could Track You, Too

the former sheriff of Mississippi County, Mo., used a lesser-known Securus service to track people’s cellphones, including those of other officers, without court orders, according to charges filed against him in state and federal court.

The service can find the whereabouts of almost any cellphone in the country within seconds.

It does this by going through a system typically used by marketers and other companies to get location data from major cellphone carriers, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, do ents show.

As location tracking has become more accurate, and as more people carry their phones at every waking moment, the ability of law enforcement officers and companies like Securus to get that data has become an ever greater privacy concern.

Securus offers the location-finding service as an additional feature for law enforcement and corrections officials, part of an effort to entice customers in a lucrative but compe ive industry. In promotional packets, the company, one of the largest prison phone providers in the country, recounts several instances in which the service was used.

Asked about Securus’s vetting of surveillance requests, a company spokesman said that

it required customers to upload a legal do ent, such as a warrant or affidavit, and certify that the activity was authorized.
“Securus is neither a judge nor a district attorney, and the responsibility of ensuring the legal adequacy of supporting do entation lies with our law enforcement customers and their counsel,”

The senator said relying on customers to provide do entation was inadequate. “Wireless carriers have an obligation to take affirmative steps to verify law enforcement requests,” he wrote, adding that Securus did not follow those procedures.

With customers’ consent, carriers sell the ability to acquire location data for marketing purposes like providing coupons when someone is near a business, or services like roadside assistance or bank fraud protection. Companies that use the data generally sign contracts pledging to get people’s approval — through a response to a text message, for example, or the push of a button on a menu — or to otherwise use the data legally.

But the contracts between the companies, including Securus, are “the legal equivalent of a pinky promise,”

The Supreme Court has ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a car counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment, but this was because installing the device involved touching a person’s property — something that doesn’t happen when a cellphone is pinged.

As long as they are following their own privacy policies,

carriers “are largely free to do what they want with the information they obtain, including location information, as long as it’s unrelated to a phone call,”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/technology/cellphone-tracking-law-enforcement.html

[Winehole23]

that's the story I just posted

[Winehole23]

app Beta leaks real time location, no password required:

A little-known service has been leaking the real-time locations of US cell phone users to anyone who takes the time to exploit an easily spotted bug in a free trial feature, security news site KrebsOnSecurity reported Thursday.

LocationSmart, as the service is known, identifies the locations of phones connected to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon, often to an accuracy of a few hundred yards, reporter Brian Krebs said. While the firm claims it provides the location lookup service only for legitimate and authorized purposes, Krebs reported that a demo tool on the LocationSmart website could be used by just about anyone to surrep iously track the real-time whereabouts of just about anyone else.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/service-leaked-locations-of-us-cell-phones-for-free-no-password-required/

[Winehole23]

Roberts joins the libs:

a warrant is required in there rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party

We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to awireless carrier’s database of physical location information.In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI,its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and theinescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the factthat such information is gathered by a third party does notmake it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site recordshere was a search under that Amendment.The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 23Opinion of the Courtthe case is remanded for further proceedings consistentwith this opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-402_h315.pdf

[boutons_deux]

lots of other for sale

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9436314

[Winehole23]

Homeland Security bridles at GPS tracking decision:

the decision: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...k-entering-us/

resistance:

If HSI wants to argue that it can engage in warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles, that is within its prerogatives... However, Jones does not support a 48-hour window within the border. Instead, Jones establishes that the government needs a warrant signed by a neutral magistrate judge based on probable cause consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, Congress has established that a warrant is necessary for the installation of a mobile tracking device, which included GPS devices. In 18 U.S.C. 3117, Congress does not discuss any exception for border searches. Indeed, once a device is put on a vehicle, it likely will leave the border area, which undercuts the government's position.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-entering-us/