Law Enforcement Cell Phone Tracking Rampant

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:32:00 AM EST
Tags: wiretapping, cell phone surviellance (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Eric Lichtblau in the New York Times writes about a report from cell phone carriers in response to a Congressional Inquiry about law enforcement requests cell phone tracking warrants, subpoena and informal requests.

The report was received by Co-Chairs of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Committe., as a response to a letter written In March, 2012 to AT&T asking for information.

The reports notes a huge upswing in use of cell-phone surveillance.Even some members of Congress were suprised. [More...]

Lichtblau says the reports "document an explosion in cellphone surveillance in the last five years, with the companies turning over records thousands of times a day in response to police emergencies, court orders, law enforcement subpoenas and other requests." Also:

The reports also reveal a sometimes uneasy partnership with law enforcement agencies, with the carriers frequently rejecting demands that they considered legally questionable or unjustified. At least one carrier even referred some inappropriate requests to the F.B.I.

Which law enforcement agencies are using them? All of them, all over the nation:

[T]he widened cell surveillance cut across all levels of government — from run-of-the-mill street crimes handled by local police departments to financial crimes and intelligence investigations at the state and federal levels

We're also paying a hefty price for the records turnover:

AT&T, for one, said it collected $8.3 million last year compared with $2.8 million in 2007, and other carriers reported similar increases in billings.

< Life Without Parole vs. Death | Obama Proposes Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Middle Class >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Law Enforcement Cell Phone Tracking Rampant | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Cell phones aren't "real" phones... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by unitron on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:02:57 AM EST

...so we don't need "real" search warrants.

And those secret rooms where land lines are tapped.

We don't talk about those, so you shouldn't either.

And besides they don't really exist and that's our story and we're stickin' to it.

If the terrorists win, you won't have a 4th amendment then, either, so kwitcher beefin'.

We had to destroy it in order to save it.

I guess I will start (none / 0) (#1)
by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:56:16 AM EST

saying hello to the "cops" whenever I talk on the cell phone. What can we do? Anyone have any ideas? Elect more democrats to congress again and have them fail to do a damn thing we care about?

: I always did that (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:56:46 AM EST

During the Bush years when I would talk to my sister and we would discuss politics and talk about how much we hated Bush. I would always end with "And for the NSA folks who are listening, my name is __ and I can be found at ____. Thought I'd save you the time!"

Dreaming of a perfect cell phone movement grid (none / 0) (#2)
by LeaNder on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:17:02 AM EST

For instance, when a police agency asks for a cell tower "dump" for data on subscribers who were near a tower during a certain period of time, it may get back hundreds or even thousands of names.

I know, I should be ashamed, but it is my ideal scenario for longer now. The idea to have the precise movements of the cellphones of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on 2/26/12.

Cell Phone Towers and Antennae in Sanford Florida

No idea how precise they would be in time and space. Unfortunately I think they may not be precise enough. ;)

Unfortunately? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:38:15 AM EST

Unfortunately? Really? You want to know for essentially prurient reasons. And for that you would be just fine with "someone" having the ability to exactly map the movements of every. single. cell. phone. user.

I don't care that you would give up your own privacy, but stay the he!! away from mine.

You know you should be ashamed, but are you?


I don't know how accurate gps (none / 0) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:53:19 AM EST

is on smart phones, but my husband loves to watch himself drive down the street on his. As far as I can tell, the only thing lacking is the constant reporting of your location but for all I know that is stored someplace if your gps abilities are active on your smart phone.


You should be ashamed ... (none / 0) (#13)
by LeaNder on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:05:35 AM EST

You know you should be ashamed, but are you?

Look, dear sj, I started my note with exactly that, and for precisely that reason.

Let's consider the facts: I neither have the knowledge, technical or otherwise or the power and ability to invade your or anyone's privacy, so why are you so indignant about my little mind game?

I admittedly was a bit irratated myself in the post 911 universe, when my emails suddenly doubled, tripled or quadrupled in my mailbox without any easily recognizable pattern. But once they handled their technical issues, whatever they were, it stopped as suddenly as it had started. Up to that point I studied with quite a bit of curiosity the slightly different path the multiplied mails took through the net in the email headers. Around the same time frame a really urgent mail of mine needed close to 30 hours to travel 300 miles, something I would have loved to have a technical explanation for too. But in the end, I only hoped that the technicians that have to do the "combing" have bloody good programs or tools. Imagine the masses! So why should I be concerned? Besides ever worked in a field were it is easy to see that the mass is stereotypically similar and ultimately boring?

It of course changes everything fundamentally if you are either a terrorist, a member of the organized crime or any other of several professions that have to be concerned about privacy issue, like e.g. a lawyer or a journalist to pick out just two.


Why am I indignant? (none / 0) (#14)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:20:25 AM EST

Because the more an idea is casually verbalized the more that idea is normalized. And I think when the idea is offensive -- and I find this idea offensive in the extreme -- it shouldn't be casually accepted.

I realize this is a facile example, but the overt racism of many of our parents or grandparents was acceptable because everybody accepted it. It needed pushback and when that finally happened the racism became less overt and more covert. And with time and generations who never experienced that overt racism, maybe it can finally go away.

But police state survealliance should never be wished for in a free society. I think it should be in the interest of every member of a society to be concerned about privacy issues.


I think you are being a bit harsh sj (none / 0) (#17)
by ZtoA on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:10:06 PM EST

LeaNder has said that s/he is an artist, and artists have been writing/composing/visioning hellish scenarios for a long time. Bosch did, tho it can be argued that he painted literal visual depictions of colloquialisms (like "rot in hell"), both Dore and Blake illustrated Dante's Inferno, kurt Vonnegut, Philip Glass, and many more envision dystopia. GPS gridding is not such a radical idea also. It might easily be added to evidence displacing DNA as the new evidence.

Also, racism cannot be solved by going back to a mindset before racism. Same with the surveillance state. We'll have to find new solutions (I don't know, scattering devices giving false reads, expensive privacy security services for phones, whatever.) If hell can be pictured (think Dante) it can be traversed.


: I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:40:01 PM EST

I think you are being a bit harsh sj
I don't know LeaNder from Adam. S/he came via Zimmerman and I ignore those threads like the plague. And frankly although I do tend to give more leeway to artists, I'll stick with my "harsh" response.
This is not an artistic creation. I'm not reading a short story or a novel or watching a movie about a dystopian society. This thought was injected as a secret wish for our very own world. That idea can't be normalized. People should be horrified at this suggestion.
I completely agree with you on this:

Also, racism cannot be solved by going back to a mindset before racism. Same with the surveillance state.
Since a society can't ever really go back, any suggestion of the advancement of the surveillance state needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. It's likely the losing end of the tug-of-war between the elites/not-elites, but I can't shrug my shoulders at the implications of Leander's "ideal scenario".

sj - how about a paradox? (none / 0) (#28)
by LeaNder on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:21:28 PM EST

I admittedly register a strong resistance to deal with these matters lightly.

I also feel a tension between the overpowering Dystopian moment in your comment, the bracket of the first and the last paragraph-the surveillance-control-police state-around the hesitantly optimist center, a linear history progressively advancing towards a Utopia. For me Utopia and Dystopia are interrelated in complex ways.

Like many of my generation I was influenced by Dystopia novels like e.g.: 1984, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, or, why not, Zamyatin's We. The respective political ideologies they mirror, I surely do not need to mention in this context? They are on your mind.

The only phrase that I can deeply connect with is this one:

It needed pushback and when that finally happened the racism became less overt and more covert

I would probably prefer racisms, I follow Elisabeth Young Brühl in this context. They may have overlapping characteristics, but they surely have different origins, histories and dynamics.

My core problem is twofold, we may have overcome the specific shapes these matters took under the reigning ideologies for our grand-parents and parents, but there is no guarantee we won't develop our own ideological blind spots, or pseudo-sciences like The Bell Curve. I don't like generalization about whole past generations, and I do not completely trust a clear linear model, it's an advance that sometimes by checks and errors, solutions that create new problems.

But were exactly on the linear racism time axis into the better future would you locate Islamophobia?

But I guess, at the risk of completely misunderstanding you, here lies my core problem:

Because the more an idea is casually verbalized the more that idea is normalized.

I do not believe in any kind of censorship. Fact is, if it would exist such technical data would convince me quite a bit, provided it would be reliable and precise. That's a thought I can surely suppress as you suggest I have to, but I can't keep my mind from thinking about it.

I don't fool myself, we have been "glass citizen", transparent citizen for much longer now, and the development gains speed. We are to a large extend by administrative bio-political processes, the space of privacy is constantly shrinking. Germany plans to commercialize the register of residence data, you may have that already. ...

True total surveillance surely would be an ideal totalitarian tool, but so is censorship. How do you crack that paradox?


Who is talking censorship? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:18:37 PM EST

You long for a state of affairs for prurient reasons. You express that thought. I am horrified by the implications of that thought not only mentioned but desired. I express my own thought.

You say something horrible. I push back.

Letting your comment be without responding would have been tantamount to granting permission to giving that horrible thought airtime with no rebuttal.

You wished for a state where a person's exact whereabouts could be pinpointed. I was nauseous at the thought and strongly objected to normalizing the police state and constant surveillance. Neither you nor I were censored.


I'm enjoying the exchange between you two (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by ZtoA on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 07:26:35 PM EST

Its a grey area, what to say and what not to say. If it can be imagined, then probably others are imagining it too and someone's going to say it. We have all sorts of monsters of the mind that when brought forth we can do battle with.

The notion of a surveillance state is not at all new, in the inquisition they even had belief police, and it goes on from there. Very revolting, I agree sj and I admire your pushback against this hell. But I read a different tone in LeaNder's first comment. It felt ironic to me, like "perfect" actually meant a combination of inevitable, useful and horrible, like Vonnegut might feel about ice nine.

LeaNder, I liked your reference to sj as an optimism sandwich. That's great. My mother is like that and I admire it so. I'm much more a ragout, as you might be too with your non linear stuff and all.

And, as an aside a work of art can be pretty much anything these days as we are many decades past a urinal made by anonymous working class people presented as great art to glorify an individual artist, and a blog comment is as concrete as anything. The next crop of MFA students might read about this. God, I hate MFA programs. :)

Also, I wish Rush would suppress himself.


ZtoA - Duchamp - sj (none / 0) (#36)
by LeaNder on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:37:57 AM EST

ZtoA, the most important story about the urinal is that its choice as work of art was a protest against the new exhibition rules by Duchamp. I would need to look up the special show in 1917. I don't remember. He didn't sign it with his name, after all. The rules opened the exhibition for everyone, everything submitted, or in other words everyone submitting something.

Facebook: I have been trying to get out of it close to 2 years ago. The advise is, never click on a link that is automatically sent you when someone who has you on his list posts something. I am told it is still there, although I carefully obeyed all the rules to make it vanish, they are not easy to find, I remember, according to them after half a year it should have been gone. Not so, obviously. Seems one needs a lawyer to make it go away.


: Duchamp (an aside) (none / 0) (#45)
by ZtoA on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:44:33 PM EST

I think submitting Fountain to that show was a bit of a performance piece since he was on the board, submitted anonymously and knew it would be rejected as a prank and then got to resign. Fountain was probably not his idea either and the name R Mutt was used by an artist friend of his. The original urinal was lost or destroyed.
Not only was he an extremely interesting thinker, he was very savvy. So, after he protested "retinal art" and materialism, but saw artists like Rauschenberg making lots of money, he began to officially authorize certain curators to make replicas of Fountain in the 50s and in the 60s he himself issued a limited edition. So then Fountain became a commercialized product which can be and is owned. Talk about ironic. (or basic human nature) Also, the link is to a site where there is retinal enjoyment of the many iterations of the urinal.

sj (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by ZtoA on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:20:57 PM EST

Who is talking censorship?

Oddly I am not a purist anti-censorship proponent. It gets tricky with copyright laws. And blowhards like Rush and his ilk really do nothing to add to communication, conversation or whatever. I think Jeralyn's blog rules promote a long blog life. I really like your push back and it fleshes out the horridness of the dystopia.

It may not surprise you that I feel a similar reaction to a surveillance state as you. I was asking my 20 something daughter and a bunch of her friends if they had any thoughts about this. Or Facebook's invasiveness, or commercial profiling or any of it and each just shrugged like it had never occurred to them to care. I tried, a bit, to scare them, but they were affectionately annoyed.

I googled LeanDer's reference to that psychologist and found a site that seemed rather interesting (Yale University Press) when up popped a box. I hate it when boxes pop up. It wanted to know if I would like to "SHARE" this site with an array of social media and when I clicked I got to a page that was a form to "DO NOT TRACK". The genie is already out of the bottle. Amazon.com already knows me better than pretty much anyone.


: Financial Times has that, too (none / 0) (#34)
by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:14:51 AM EST

That pop-up with a notification. Moreover, by closing the box one agrees to permit their tracking cookies. Every now and then I click a potentially interesting link and it goes there. I forgo the article and close the tab. I mean, yes, I could (and will) use Norton to clean it up, but I still get annoyed. And at least there you get fair warning.
I agree that the genie is hovering around and has left his bottle far behind, but I don't see any reason to give him permission to take over.

what does this mean? (none / 0) (#32)
by ZtoA on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:05:58 PM EST

Germany plans to commercialize the register of residence data, you may have that already. ...

Also, do you have a link to your artist friend's website that is maybe in English? Probably not, just hoping.


artist friend's (none / 0) (#37)
by LeaNder on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:25:24 AM EST

sj, concerning the link to the "International Day of Inaction" or day of not doing something, the only link to an "artist friend" I used in a comment, a day he created with another artist, I wondered about the combination of German and English on the entry of the year 2003 too. I thought comment and link had disappeared? I don't even remember why I used it and whom I got into a dispute with again.

You wished for a state where a person's exact whereabouts could be pinpointed. I was nauseous at the thought and strongly objected to normalizing the police state and constant surveillance. Neither you nor I were censored.

I do not wish for that state, but that state is reality as the article by Jeralyn shows.

It obviously is used a lot by prosecution, it is also used in increasing numbers, even a branch of business developed to handle the demand from police or Federal police.

ZtoA, is perfectly correct that I used it ironically.

Excursus/digression: Strictly what fascinated me in law, the only field next to economy taught in a special post grad program for people in the "art industry" as Adorno & Horkheimer called it, is, that it always works for both sides, or that the rights for one side are always connected to the duties of someone else, or vise versa. I think it was the most difficult thing, initially, to always keep your mind open both ways. At least that is how I remember my first encounter with law.

After this complicated entry now my question.

As an observer of the developments in the field, I am usually simply on the side that could be and is targeted by these diverse administrative control routines, but there are times, when I realize the advantage gained by using these tools for the other side. This is such an incident, it should be easy to see for anyone that ultimately only wants to understand what really happened that night. Why matters escalated.

I no doubt could censor my thoughts, in other words this realization. But this little ironical comment, has no big impact on what society thinks.

Where your censorship project should start to prevent the idea from invading other people's minds may well be entertainment. That would be much more effective.

What about thrillers or police series? In how many of them the case is solved with these tools? What do you think? It used to be a standard in thrillers about kidnapping to pick out one topic. You can also notice, if you watch this type of entertainment, that by now the perpetrators use communication sources that cannot be located as easily to make the plot more interesting.

This is just from the top of my head, before even having started to think about the topic.

Strictly I can understand your line of thought, but it feels to me like fighting wind mills. What exists and can effectively be used will be very, very hard to make go away.

What is the use of censoring thought about something that exists?

Concerning the Zimmerman case, assuming cell phone surveillance could useful material, which I do not know, should it not be be used since the case already is much too controversial. To open another can of worms. "Let's not use it in this case, it has already stirred too much public attention".


Am I understanding you LeaNder? (none / 0) (#44)
by ZtoA on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:26:55 PM EST

You think that GPS data is currently sophisticated enough to exactly map the movements of TM and GZ and could be submitted as legal evidence? And, if so, and if the court allowed it, the prosecution might not want to in order to not attract more attention to this case? I doubt the last part if it did impeach GZ's story.

I don't know if the technology is there yet, or if it could be mined and submitted at a later time (like DNA technology) and used to appeal a case. If the surveillance technology and data are useable then who owns it? Would it be available to the state of Florida or defense lawyers? And whoever did have the technology would they want it widely known they have it? So, yeah, I agree with you that I don't think its going to happen - not this year at least.


: ZtoA (none / 0) (#47)
by LeaNder on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 02:12:27 PM EST

You think that GPS data is currently sophisticated enough to exactly map the movements of TM and GZ and could be submitted as legal evidence?
I'll try a really short answer, ZtoA, then I really have to stop chattering, although I like to chatter with you.;)
I have no idea. But Heidelja knows slightly more about it, here a short summary of the prerequisites, a) the phone has GPS, 2) it was activated on that night. c) it was set to store positions every 10 to 20 feet. If I understood him correctly that is.
My last paragraph was bad. Let me think if I can put it differently here. In a way I only tried to find a fast end.
Second attempt:
The technologies and data exists, to not talk about it means ignoring reality.
Supposed the data exists and could prove or disprove one side or the other. My core question in the end is this: What could it mean if it wasn't used in a highly publicized and controversial case, although it exists? Strictly it's non-use would obey sj's law to not talk about it could also mean to prevent people to learn more about it. Among other things.
This is a highly interesting question:

Would it be available to the state of Florida or defense lawyers?
Let's suppose it existed, for argument's sake, and it could help to get an acquittal for Zimmerman. Obviously law enforcement can get the data, but I doubt a lawyer can.
I choose the specific passage since it seems to be quite a bit of work to filter out just a specific cell phone. Maybe the firms founded to especially deal with the demand from law enforcement handle that and only filter the relevant data? ...
****************
I read about an American artist of Arab descend who either had somehow gotten on the suspect list in post 911 America, or as someone of Arab descend was suspect, I do not remember. He choose to make himself completely transparent, if you understand what I mean by this in this context. He set up a site where anyone could check his whereabouts on any day of the week 24/24 including law enforcement.
The right of privacy

ZtoA - sj - sorry (none / 0) (#39)
by LeaNder on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:39:39 AM EST

sorry, I mixed a question by ZtoA with one by sj, which strictly should not have happened. Since sj, stated he avoids (like the plague?) the Zimmerman thread maybe even the articles?

ZtoA, I am mediating about doing a translation for him. You may understand why the international day of inaction or not doing something was on my mind in the Zimmerman case?

sj, another sorry, some say I overdo excusing myself, they may be correct, for spelling Elisabeth Young-Bruehl's name. Which shouldn't have happened since I am aware she wasn't German. But the name Brühl is, which may be the reason it happened.

I should not chatter so much, sometimes I do it to avoid something I hate to do. ;)


: Yes. Like the plague. (none / 0) (#42)
by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:06:03 PM EST

All of it. Dropped in once or twice accidentally and corrected my mistake as soon as possible.

The more an idea is casually verbalized... (none / 0) (#43)
by heidelja on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:14:01 PM EST

...the more that idea is normalized.

Seems to be polar opposite the notion that with knowledge their is power. Further, you seem to imply that because it is offensive it should not be discussed openly. But if it is not discussed openly, it then it goes discussed in secret, or maybe not at all, possibly perpetuating its existence which you find offensive.

If it not "normalized" in discussions then those among the typical complacent majority who are "unprincipled" by thinking they never do nothing wrong so only the "guilty" could ever be rightly affectd never might learn how this might not be the case.

As you conclude "it should be in the [mainstream] interest of every member of a society to be concerned about privacy issues." One way to achieve this is to casually impress on others how advanced implementation of meshing technologies people lose their privacy in any number of ancillary ways not discussed prior to the discrete technologies going implemented that first served other purposes. And possiibly through the implications of laws, individuals' right to privacy eventually go subjugated to the indiscriminate powers of law enforcement, if only as another harmless "investgative tool."


First, an idea is not knowledge (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:49:24 PM EST

It's an idea. Not the same thing.

Further, you seem to imply that because it is offensive it should not be discussed openly.

If I implied that then I was unclear. When an idea is offensive it should not go unchallenged. Discussion of an idea doesn't normalize it. Casual acceptance of an idea frequently expressed does that. Unless it is challenged.

For example, it was conventional "wisdom" that the deficit must be the number one priority and cuts to everything -- especially the safety net -- must be on the table. It was repeated endlessly. Occupy challenged that and changed the discussion. If they had done nothing else that was huge.


Per merriam-webster.com... (none / 0) (#48)
by heidelja on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:03:25 AM EST

...found here one meaning of idea:

whatever is known or supposed about something

Without some knowledge of the subject at hand, the idea suggested would have never been derived. In other words, there is a direct coorelation of ones knowledge to ones ideas for the extention of that known.


: Still not the same thing (none / 0) (#49)
by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:26:24 AM EST

One can enhance or inform the other but an idea (a concept) and knowledge (data) are not the same thing. Correlation is not equivalence.
I wasn't talking out of my a$$ here. Sometimes I do, this time wasn't it.

Actually, it fits your argument... (none / 0) (#50)
by heidelja on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:56:25 AM EST

...better if you really mean to imply one of the various meanings of ideal and not that of an idea.


: Oy (none / 0) (#51)
by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:31:52 PM EST

This is what passes for logic?

you have to scroll down slightly (none / 0) (#3)
by LeaNder on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:18:27 AM EST

there are more ...


Given that... (none / 0) (#7)
by heidelja on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:38:25 AM EST

...smart phones can be located by their GPS coordinates means that phones could be made to store the coordinates when being moved every 10-20 feet or so. The stored accumulated GPS points could be retreived from the phone and its movements from a timeframe could be recreated. This really has nothing much to do with the location of cell towers, its all in the functionality of the phone.


ick, ick, ick (none / 0) (#10)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:39:02 AM EST

Might reconsider becoming a luddite.


: I have a very basic phone-- (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by the capstan on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:36:38 AM EST

no text, no apps--and apparently the local 911 cannot tell where I am. Further, it is only on when I want to make a call or am expecting a call. Suits me fine!

thanks heidelja (none / 0) (#11)
by LeaNder on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:41:13 AM EST

their GPS coordinates means that phones could be made to store the coordinates when being moved every 10-20 feet or so.

Well, could be made to store is not so helpful for my specific dream scenario. ;)

But thanks, heidelja, do I understand you correctly: Once it is set to store the data, it does, but not before? To return to the above article-which I admittedly only scanned very fast-this can be done without my own involvement, and without me noticing it, by the provider?

Does this chip function similar to a hard disk, even if I delete, let's say text mails, they can be restored from the chip?

Does your name signify something specific?


The reports.... (none / 0) (#6)
by heidelja on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:29:22 AM EST

"document an explosion in cellphone surveillance in the last five years, with the companies turning over records thousands of times a day in response to police emergencies, court orders, law enforcement subpoenas and other requests."

Shouldn't this be going seen as the new cash cow for cell operators who charge a fee for these records?

"Are you talking to me on a cellular phone? (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:42:52 AM EST

I dont know you. Who is this? Dont come here. I'm hanging up the phone. Prank Caller! Prank Caller!"

Alarming, but not suprising, here in surveillance society.

See the future in India (none / 0) (#16)
by J Upchurch on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:32:18 AM EST

India gives a glimpse of the future, where the police can figure out who is in the vicinity of where a crime was committed.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-16/gurgaon/30631575_1_cdr-amit-kumar-crime-cases

Keep in mind that even if GPS is disabled, they can also figure out your location if the wifi is enabled on your phone.

E911 Can Still Figure out you location (none / 0) (#19)
by J Upchurch on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:35:39 PM EST

by using cell tower triangulation, but it is only good to 100-200 yards. That should work on any cell phone on the market. If you don't want to disclose your location, then leave your phone turned off.

I would also discourage discussing any private information by text messaging.

See, now (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Zorba on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:02:55 PM EST

This is why I never turn my cell phone on unless I want to use it. Which is seldom. And I never text. Nor, for that matter, do I even discuss any private information on my cell phone, since it is mainly used to call someone to say "I'm running late," or some such. But then, I also have an old "stupid phone," which could still be used for cell tower triangulation, but it doesn't have a GPS.


I'm so bad about making sure that (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:16:01 PM EST

I have my cell phone, I'm not certain how much good tracking it does in trying to know my location. Smart phones seem so invasive though, yet I have one....why? Why can't I just say No? I went without for a very long time too but it ended up feeling like I was denying myself something. It turns out I was denying myself the ability to become addicted to scramble with friends.


But what if you're kidnapped?? (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:37:13 PM EST

And held in a dusty old shack???

How will they find you??

(Yes, I watch a lot of crime shows)


I would have called for help (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:03:24 PM EST

during the beginning stages of the kidnapping. If I'm sitting in the dusty old shack, I'm thinking I don't have my cell phone on me.....again.


Ah (none / 0) (#25)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:07:35 PM EST

But you couldn't get to your phone as they put a rag over your mouth with ether, and threw you in the trunk of your car. They forgot to check you for a phone, so as you are tied up in the shack, you manage to bounce your way over (still tied in a chair, of course), grab a paper clip, adjust it, and manage to cut your ropes and grab your phone and just manage to get it turned on and send out a signal to the authorities - just before the battery dies.

They find you based on pinging and tracking your GPS. You return home to the loving arms of your family, you are then on a whirlwind tour of the morning shows, and a bestselling book is then written. A movie is made and Angelina Jolie plays you.

All because they could track your cell phone.

: Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:14:12 PM EST

My husband should just put a chip in my brassieres. His odds are much better that way;.

Just turning the phone off is not enough (none / 0) (#27)
by caseyOR on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:04:56 PM EST

to keep from being tracked. The late, great Ben Masel taught me that to be truly untraceable by cell phone, one must remove the battery from the phone.

If the battery is in the phone, the phone still "pings" the cell towers even with the phone's power off. And that means the phone's location can be followed.

I on't know about Android phones, but on the iPhone the battery cannot be removed from the phone. This, to me, is a serious design flaw.


Shield it! Here's a crude How-To (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 07:11:01 PM EST

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Make_a_Faraday_Cage_Wallet


: That is awesome (none / 0) (#35)
by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:36:31 AM EST

Will it also foil the iPhone's built-in tracker?

: LOL! (none / 0) (#38)
by Zorba on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:51:58 AM EST

Cute. But wouldn't it be easier just to wrap a piece of aluminum foil around your cell phone, and take it off when you want to use it?