4 ms·

I would argue that the e911 data is not a voluntary disclosure. The cellular companies were compelled to generate and provide this information, as well as gener

by Aloha 13y ago

I would argue that the e911 data is not a voluntary disclosure. The cellular companies were compelled to generate and provide this information, as well as generate and store hordes of other information to assist law enforcement. In short, I don't think the government should be able to compel a company to store a class of data about its users, then because now they are holding it (at the behest of the government), then strip the data of privacy and compel the cellular companies to provide it to law enforcement. I don't find a substantial difference between the police planting a tracking device on your vehicle, and requesting geolocation data records for your mobile phone, they achieve largely same goals, thru only what I consider marginally different means - meaning, both should require a warrant. The exception to that would be geolocation data that is generated as part of making a phone call. I want to hold the line on what can be monitored to the era before always on mobile communications devices. Just because the data is there, does not mean it should be able to be gotten without a warrant.

bmelton 13y ago
i think I find your reasoning flawed, as a matter of personal opinion at least. > Who you called, who called you, how long you talked - this stuff, which is otherwise known as call detail records it available to nearly everyone who works for the telco and is not really what I would consider private. I see what you're saying, as applied by the Smith v MD, that the information in a PEN register is fair game, but even in Smith, the collection of records had to be manual, which prevented its collection and use en masse, meaning that its application was self-limiting. Sure, the police could probably collect all the PEN registers, but as most of it would be useless, why would they? Regarding your earlier statement though, for some perspective, had the British been able to keep tabs on the metadata of the populace, our founding fathers would have all been hanged for treason, and America would never have declared independence. I don't mean to suggest that being subjects of Britain would be necessarily bad, but I think it's fair to suggest that our founding fathers considered their actions just, and as a matter of course, would have likely considered actions that would have resulted in their death equally unjust. If you agree, I think that should have some bearing on your interpretation of the fourth amendment.
- Aloha 13y ago
  The collection of records has not been manual since sometime in the 80's - the switch can generate a report of all this data. But I get the point. I think metadata alone is useless - it gives you associations, not content, you could be calling someone not very nice to talk about the fact that they owe you money for work you did on their car - or about blowing something up. All this metadata is useful for is generating leads for traditional police work (aka shoe leather) to follow up on and dig up information the old fashioned way.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I'm confused as to why you'd be against the collection of GPS metadata then. GPS data is, effectively, only associative metadata. It can tell you where you were, and when you were there, but not what you were doing. That's why I'm having a hard time finding consistency in your position. That isn't meant as judgement of you, by any means... the entire issue is a morass. We want law enforcement agencies to be effective (assuming that we're not acting criminally), but we don't want them to be overseers. I personally think that the precedent is for us to err on the side of liberty over justice, and I think that in the spirit of presumption of innocence and all that, but that's influenced by confirmation bias, at the least.
    - Aloha 13y ago
      It depends on the KIND of GPS metadata - the GPS that is generated when I call happens is attached to the call metadata. The Metadata that is generated just by having your phone on is not. I'm ok with things attached to calls, I'm not OK with blanket tracking of peoples locations. The standard that I use is what information would you have gotten from a pen register in say 1973 or at least inferred from other sources of data, which is, calling party, called party, duration of conversation, location of parties in call, and really nothing more. Which leave out whole hosts of other kinds of data, like e911 pings, and tower data (showing all the users on the tower) and so on. Because much of this data is compelled to be kept by the government beyond what would be needed for engineering purposes (or in the case of e911 data generated by order of the government) it most certainly shouldn't be available without a warrant.
dalke 13y ago
I take it from your answer that you haven't read the court decisions I mentioned? That's okay, I haven't read all of them either. E911 data is a subset of geodata. US. v Jones concerns tower data, which the business captures as part of its normal business. This is not under mandate from the government. "A majority of courts" (quote from p9) "have concluded that the acquisition of historical cell site location data pursuant to the Stored Communications Act‘s specific and articulable facts standard does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the time period involved." By your argument, since the phone companies are not compelled to store this historical geodata, then it's okay for the police to access these records. "I don't find a substantial difference..." Congratulations. But there is a substantial difference anyway. Trespassing on someone's car, in order to plant a tracking device, is quite different than, say, tailing someone to get the same information. The courts have said that the first is illegal. The second is definitely not illegal, even though it provides the same information. I understand that you want a limited, very technical distinction on what information law enforcement cannot get from cell phone data. You base your argument on similarity to what land lines provide. In doing so, you reject the 10 pages from this most recent legal opinion of Judge Leon which characterize why this similarity is not appropriate. In doing so, you ignore other technical ways that law enforcement can and does get geodata from mobile phones even without using government mandated methods like E911. The government can bypass the phone company entirely and use IMSI catchers. By your logic, which only looks to see if the government is compelling a person or company to do something, then IMSI catchers are acceptable. Would you kindly read some of the relevant court judgements, hopefully starting with this most recent one by Judge Leon, and comment with regards to them?

by Aloha 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

i think I find your reasoning flawed, as a matter of personal opinion at least. > Who you called, who called you, how long you talked - this stuff, which is otherwise known as call detail records it available to nearly everyone who works for the telco and is not really what I would consider private. I see what you're saying, as applied by the Smith v MD, that the information in a PEN register is fair game, but even in Smith, the collection of records had to be manual, which prevented its collection and use en masse, meaning that its application was self-limiting. Sure, the police could probably collect all the PEN registers, but as most of it would be useless, why would they? Regarding your earlier statement though, for some perspective, had the British been able to keep tabs on the metadata of the populace, our founding fathers would have all been hanged for treason, and America would never have declared independence. I don't mean to suggest that being subjects of Britain would be necessarily bad, but I think it's fair to suggest that our founding fathers considered their actions just, and as a matter of course, would have likely considered actions that would have resulted in their death equally unjust. If you agree, I think that should have some bearing on your interpretation of the fourth amendment.

Aloha 13y ago
The collection of records has not been manual since sometime in the 80's - the switch can generate a report of all this data. But I get the point. I think metadata alone is useless - it gives you associations, not content, you could be calling someone not very nice to talk about the fact that they owe you money for work you did on their car - or about blowing something up. All this metadata is useful for is generating leads for traditional police work (aka shoe leather) to follow up on and dig up information the old fashioned way.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I'm confused as to why you'd be against the collection of GPS metadata then. GPS data is, effectively, only associative metadata. It can tell you where you were, and when you were there, but not what you were doing. That's why I'm having a hard time finding consistency in your position. That isn't meant as judgement of you, by any means... the entire issue is a morass. We want law enforcement agencies to be effective (assuming that we're not acting criminally), but we don't want them to be overseers. I personally think that the precedent is for us to err on the side of liberty over justice, and I think that in the spirit of presumption of innocence and all that, but that's influenced by confirmation bias, at the least.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    It depends on the KIND of GPS metadata - the GPS that is generated when I call happens is attached to the call metadata. The Metadata that is generated just by having your phone on is not. I'm ok with things attached to calls, I'm not OK with blanket tracking of peoples locations. The standard that I use is what information would you have gotten from a pen register in say 1973 or at least inferred from other sources of data, which is, calling party, called party, duration of conversation, location of parties in call, and really nothing more. Which leave out whole hosts of other kinds of data, like e911 pings, and tower data (showing all the users on the tower) and so on. Because much of this data is compelled to be kept by the government beyond what would be needed for engineering purposes (or in the case of e911 data generated by order of the government) it most certainly shouldn't be available without a warrant.

dalke 13y ago

I take it from your answer that you haven't read the court decisions I mentioned? That's okay, I haven't read all of them either. E911 data is a subset of geodata. US. v Jones concerns tower data, which the business captures as part of its normal business. This is not under mandate from the government. "A majority of courts" (quote from p9) "have concluded that the acquisition of historical cell site location data pursuant to the Stored Communications Act‘s specific and articulable facts standard does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the time period involved." By your argument, since the phone companies are not compelled to store this historical geodata, then it's okay for the police to access these records. "I don't find a substantial difference..." Congratulations. But there is a substantial difference anyway. Trespassing on someone's car, in order to plant a tracking device, is quite different than, say, tailing someone to get the same information. The courts have said that the first is illegal. The second is definitely not illegal, even though it provides the same information. I understand that you want a limited, very technical distinction on what information law enforcement cannot get from cell phone data. You base your argument on similarity to what land lines provide. In doing so, you reject the 10 pages from this most recent legal opinion of Judge Leon which characterize why this similarity is not appropriate. In doing so, you ignore other technical ways that law enforcement can and does get geodata from mobile phones even without using government mandated methods like E911. The government can bypass the phone company entirely and use IMSI catchers. By your logic, which only looks to see if the government is compelling a person or company to do something, then IMSI catchers are acceptable. Would you kindly read some of the relevant court judgements, hopefully starting with this most recent one by Judge Leon, and comment with regards to them?