SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Stop Watching Them: Federal Court Squashes Unwarranted Cell Phone Tracking
Latest ruling sets up scenario in which Supreme Court will likely decide what limitations should be placed on law enforcement's use of cell phone records
Aug 06, 2015
In what civil liberties groups hope will lead to an end of unchecked cell phone tracking of U.S. residents, a federal court of appeals has ruled that law enforcement agencies cannot obtain a person's historical cell phone location information from cell phone companies without a legal warrant signed by a judge.
In a decision that is likely to propel the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit of Appeals on Wednesday ruled the practice of tracking individuals using information stored on a person's phone or within a company's database system without court approval is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
As The Intercept reports:
The decision is the strongest assertion of the Fourth Amendment rights of mobile phone users out of three appellate court decisions on the matter, setting up a likely Supreme Court hearing.
"The tide I think is turning," said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Aaron Graham, a man convicted of armed robbery after his cell phone location information over seven months was obtained by the government from Sprint.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling rejected the "third party doctrine," a legal theory that private information held by a company is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions [...]
Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU, called the opinion "a full-throated defense of Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the digital age."
In previously heard challenges, the two other appeals courts which reviewed the issue--both the 5th and 11th Circuits--ruled differently than the 4th Circuit as they took the side of government lawyers who argued that cell phone users should have no expectation of privacy when their cell phone data is already in the hands of their phone company.
But as Wessler explains, the historic legal idea of the "third party doctrine" should no longer apply in an era when our phones can reveal so much about our personal lives. "Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
And the court agreed with that position. As the ruling itself stated, "We cannot accept the proposition that cell phone users volunteer to convey their location information simply by choosing to activate and use their cell phones and to carry the devices on their person. Cell phone use is not only ubiquitous in our society today but, at least for an increasing portion of our society, it has become essential to full cultural and economic participation."
However, with discrepant rulings at the appellate court level, it appears as though it will be up to the nation's highest court to weigh in.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In what civil liberties groups hope will lead to an end of unchecked cell phone tracking of U.S. residents, a federal court of appeals has ruled that law enforcement agencies cannot obtain a person's historical cell phone location information from cell phone companies without a legal warrant signed by a judge.
In a decision that is likely to propel the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit of Appeals on Wednesday ruled the practice of tracking individuals using information stored on a person's phone or within a company's database system without court approval is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
As The Intercept reports:
The decision is the strongest assertion of the Fourth Amendment rights of mobile phone users out of three appellate court decisions on the matter, setting up a likely Supreme Court hearing.
"The tide I think is turning," said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Aaron Graham, a man convicted of armed robbery after his cell phone location information over seven months was obtained by the government from Sprint.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling rejected the "third party doctrine," a legal theory that private information held by a company is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions [...]
Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU, called the opinion "a full-throated defense of Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the digital age."
In previously heard challenges, the two other appeals courts which reviewed the issue--both the 5th and 11th Circuits--ruled differently than the 4th Circuit as they took the side of government lawyers who argued that cell phone users should have no expectation of privacy when their cell phone data is already in the hands of their phone company.
But as Wessler explains, the historic legal idea of the "third party doctrine" should no longer apply in an era when our phones can reveal so much about our personal lives. "Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
And the court agreed with that position. As the ruling itself stated, "We cannot accept the proposition that cell phone users volunteer to convey their location information simply by choosing to activate and use their cell phones and to carry the devices on their person. Cell phone use is not only ubiquitous in our society today but, at least for an increasing portion of our society, it has become essential to full cultural and economic participation."
However, with discrepant rulings at the appellate court level, it appears as though it will be up to the nation's highest court to weigh in.
In what civil liberties groups hope will lead to an end of unchecked cell phone tracking of U.S. residents, a federal court of appeals has ruled that law enforcement agencies cannot obtain a person's historical cell phone location information from cell phone companies without a legal warrant signed by a judge.
In a decision that is likely to propel the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit of Appeals on Wednesday ruled the practice of tracking individuals using information stored on a person's phone or within a company's database system without court approval is an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
As The Intercept reports:
The decision is the strongest assertion of the Fourth Amendment rights of mobile phone users out of three appellate court decisions on the matter, setting up a likely Supreme Court hearing.
"The tide I think is turning," said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Aaron Graham, a man convicted of armed robbery after his cell phone location information over seven months was obtained by the government from Sprint.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling rejected the "third party doctrine," a legal theory that private information held by a company is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions [...]
Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU, called the opinion "a full-throated defense of Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the digital age."
In previously heard challenges, the two other appeals courts which reviewed the issue--both the 5th and 11th Circuits--ruled differently than the 4th Circuit as they took the side of government lawyers who argued that cell phone users should have no expectation of privacy when their cell phone data is already in the hands of their phone company.
But as Wessler explains, the historic legal idea of the "third party doctrine" should no longer apply in an era when our phones can reveal so much about our personal lives. "Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
Cell phone location records can reveal some of the most private details about our lives by showing where we go and who we spend time with. Requiring a warrant for access to this information is an important protection against unjustified government intrusions."
And the court agreed with that position. As the ruling itself stated, "We cannot accept the proposition that cell phone users volunteer to convey their location information simply by choosing to activate and use their cell phones and to carry the devices on their person. Cell phone use is not only ubiquitous in our society today but, at least for an increasing portion of our society, it has become essential to full cultural and economic participation."
However, with discrepant rulings at the appellate court level, it appears as though it will be up to the nation's highest court to weigh in.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.