5 ms·

So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant, but it's not okay to sell it commerci

So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant, but it's not okay to sell it commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.

flattone 7y ago
At the end of the day the government can do whatever it wants.
outside1234 7y ago
Trump said it was ok. QED.
lonelappde 7y ago
Why make that leap? This is a new ruling. Ask the FCC if they believe sharing to government is legal.
munk-a 7y ago
That is in no way contradictory. I disagree with it as much as you but there's lots of stuff the government does that you can't and this isn't anything new. As a parallel statement: > So it's okay for defense contractors to sell tanks to the government but not commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  Selling tanks is covered under ITAR. If there are Federal/State/County/Province/City regulations that cover (or mandate) providing metadata to all levels of government without a warrant, I'd like to see them (assuming they aren't classified).
mark_l_watson 7y ago
I am actually OK with that. I don’t believe the government is going to routinely misuse location data, confiscate my guns, ... etc. I don’t want corporations having my tracking data. The government, Democrats and Republicans, basically do whatever corporations want, so this action is surprising and welcome.
- nostromo 7y ago
  I see this all the time online, but rarely in the same breath. "I trust the government, which is corrupt and run by evil corporations."
  - amurthy1 7y ago
    There's a difference between "Corporations have too much power to influence government policy" and "The government will hand over its sensitive personal data records to corporations". I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    I read the comment as that they are surprised that the government is pushing back instead of legitimizing bad behavior. Likely explanation is the wealthy and powerful have a personal interest here. Consider the security nightmare that phone tacking poses for high wealth individuals.
tomc1985 7y ago
Do you want the ambulance/police car dispatched for you as soon as the operator determines there is a problem, or wait for them to receive your location by you telling them? What about all the people that can't for some reason? It's the only reason in my mind the government should have access to that info, and it's a damn good one
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  You are referring to the E911 location data that is provided in real-time to emergency responders. AFAIK everyone is okay with that. I was referring to archival records of all telephone use (calls, text, web).
- ta999999171 7y ago
  I'll wait. Where's the opt-out button on my device to ensure my 4th Amendment right is exercised? Oh, right. It's forced. "Freedom".
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    E911 is one of those rare, valid exceptions to the bill of rights. Do you think people should be able to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater too? Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
    - ammar2 7y ago
      > Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities That's exactly how it works: > When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transm...
0x5f3759df-i 7y ago
The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    How did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?
    - anonymousiam 7y ago
      Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
      - jagged-chisel 7y ago
        It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
        ta999999171 7y ago
        Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
AuthorizedCust 7y ago
> So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant... I don't see where the article addresses that point. While it has some resemblance, seems like a different issue covered by different parts of law.

flattone 7y ago

At the end of the day the government can do whatever it wants.

outside1234 7y ago

Trump said it was ok. QED.

lonelappde 7y ago

Why make that leap? This is a new ruling. Ask the FCC if they believe sharing to government is legal.

munk-a 7y ago

That is in no way contradictory. I disagree with it as much as you but there's lots of stuff the government does that you can't and this isn't anything new. As a parallel statement: > So it's okay for defense contractors to sell tanks to the government but not commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.

anonymousiam 7y ago
Selling tanks is covered under ITAR. If there are Federal/State/County/Province/City regulations that cover (or mandate) providing metadata to all levels of government without a warrant, I'd like to see them (assuming they aren't classified).

mark_l_watson 7y ago

I am actually OK with that. I don’t believe the government is going to routinely misuse location data, confiscate my guns, ... etc. I don’t want corporations having my tracking data. The government, Democrats and Republicans, basically do whatever corporations want, so this action is surprising and welcome.

nostromo 7y ago
I see this all the time online, but rarely in the same breath. "I trust the government, which is corrupt and run by evil corporations."
- amurthy1 7y ago
  There's a difference between "Corporations have too much power to influence government policy" and "The government will hand over its sensitive personal data records to corporations". I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  I read the comment as that they are surprised that the government is pushing back instead of legitimizing bad behavior. Likely explanation is the wealthy and powerful have a personal interest here. Consider the security nightmare that phone tacking poses for high wealth individuals.

tomc1985 7y ago

Do you want the ambulance/police car dispatched for you as soon as the operator determines there is a problem, or wait for them to receive your location by you telling them? What about all the people that can't for some reason? It's the only reason in my mind the government should have access to that info, and it's a damn good one

anonymousiam 7y ago
You are referring to the E911 location data that is provided in real-time to emergency responders. AFAIK everyone is okay with that. I was referring to archival records of all telephone use (calls, text, web).
ta999999171 7y ago
I'll wait. Where's the opt-out button on my device to ensure my 4th Amendment right is exercised? Oh, right. It's forced. "Freedom".
- tomc1985 7y ago
  E911 is one of those rare, valid exceptions to the bill of rights. Do you think people should be able to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater too? Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
  - ammar2 7y ago
    > Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities That's exactly how it works: > When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transm...

0x5f3759df-i 7y ago

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that obtaining phone location data requires a warrant. [1] So no, neither one is okay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

anonymousiam 7y ago
So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  How did you get from “mobile company providing location data” to “law enforcement use of stingrays to obtain location data”?
  - anonymousiam 7y ago
    Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
    - jagged-chisel 7y ago
      It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
      - ta999999171 7y ago
        Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.) Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".

AuthorizedCust 7y ago

> So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant... I don't see where the article addresses that point. While it has some resemblance, seems like a different issue covered by different parts of law.