Court Says Cops Can Track GPS Signal Data On Pay-As-You-Go Phones Without A Warrant

I was initially torn on this one, I thought he was a convicted criminal, but upon re-reading the article 'looks' like this guy was tracked by the phone without warrant and upon suspicion alone. This opens a flood gate of precedent to an invasion of privacy. If they suspect you of breaking one law, can start tracking you, then they can apply that precedent to jay walking or traffic tickets. You say oh right that is a stretch, but they are reviewing having plate readers on government vehicles to stroll through a parking lot and seeing if you have any violations here in phoenix. Take a gander at this article and respond as you feel...this thread doesn't have a theme outside of is big brother justified?

Court Says

reply to post by pointr97


"Otherwise, dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent. A getaway car could not be identified and followed based on the license plate number if the driver reasonably thought he had gotten away unseen. The recent nature of cell phone location technology does not change this. If it did, then technology would help criminals but not the police."

Makes sense to me. I don't ever plan on trafficing drugs any time soon, so the DEA tracking me is a non issue in my life.

I'm somewhat mixed but I'd have to say they were ultimately right on this one. A regular phone is entirely different because it is a monthly billed and time exists to get the warrant on a known line. Bad guys do exist and real bad ones in some cases....(the cartels come to mind)

With a requirement to get a warrant on every drop phone, the guy would be laughing as he swapped phones a couple minutes short of the average time to get the warrant processed. I could see a real one-sided game turning to cops not even trying and leaving a defacto freebie for bad guys. I hate big brother when it really is big brother....but I don't want a world run by the next version of the Mafia either. lol

Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

reply to post by pointr97


Now this is an intrusion that should outrage people. But I have a concern on a statement of yours. " I thought he was a convicted criminal, but upon re-reading the article 'looks' like this guy was tracked by the phone without warrant and upon suspicion alone." What does whether or not he is a convicted criminal matter? Does being a convicted criminal mean he has or should have less rights to privacy than anyone else?

That being addressed this is something frightening overall. What makes a pre-paid phone any different than a phone by contract providers? Nothing if they can do it to a pre-paid then they can do it to your contract phone.The precedent is already set by this. I have to question what other possible effects this can have. What about people that have GPS built in their cars? They can't place a GPS on your car but does that include turning that feature on in cars that are already equipped?

reply to post by billy197300


actually, upon another thought, trash is abandoned. Police have the right to go through a suspects trash without a warrant because it is considered 'discarded'.....the scent that a dog uses to track a suspect could also be considered discarded. as is it is atomic matter that the individual voluntarily leaves behind. The pay-as-you-go phone is still in the possession of the suspect.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by pointr97

 

Now this is an intrusion that should outrage people. But I have a concern on a statement of yours. " I thought he was a convicted criminal, but upon re-reading the article 'looks' like this guy was tracked by the phone without warrant and upon suspicion alone." What does whether or not he is a convicted criminal matter? Does being a convicted criminal mean he has or should have less rights to privacy than anyone else?

My intent didn't mean to set ex-cons aside, i was referring to more that they have limited rights, ie gun possession, on parole with curfew....that kind of stuff. Not to make them to be a separate class. I was thinking, maybe the guy was on parole where the terms of his parole would have allowed that, just trying to be open to why this was considered 'legal'

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

so he is guilty?

reply to post by pointr97


Just for clarity outside of possessing firearms, and being able to vote in several states an ex-con that has completed the terms of their parole have the usually have the same rights as everyone else. If they are on parole or probation they are subject to waarrantless searches anytime their case officer or law enforcement tells them to.

I had to ask because it was unclear as to what it is you were stating. Thank you for taking a moment to clear up the confusion.

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

so he is guilty?

No, but he was accused right? They have to find him and get his side of the story somehow.

The courts are, unfortunately, way behind the times here. I'm not associated with law enforcement but I could track a person via a prepaid phone. If I can do it with Internet ordered, legally obtained items, then it stands to reason that the Feds have been doing it for quite awhile now.

IMO this is just the public coming out party for outdated tech.

~Heff

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by pointr97

 

Just for clarity outside of possessing firearms, and being able to vote in several states an ex-con that has completed the terms of their parole have the usually have the same rights as everyone else. If they are on parole or probation they are subject to waarrantless searches anytime their case officer or law enforcement tells them to.

I had to ask because it was unclear as to what it is you were stating. Thank you for taking a moment to clear up the confusion.

That is exactly why I questioned it initially because I thought maybe the media was not adding this into the mix, meaning he was on parole and still acting as a mule. Which is still not 100% clear by this article.

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

so he is guilty?

No, but he was accused right? They have to find him and get his side of the story somehow.

sorry, but that is not guilty, still have rights.

Originally posted by Hefficide

The courts are, unfortunately, way behind the times here. I'm not associated with law enforcement but I could track a person via a prepaid phone. If I can do it with Internet ordered, legally obtained items, then it stands to reason that the Feds have been doing it for quite awhile now.

IMO this is just the public coming out party for outdated tech.

~Heff

Absolutely, in a civil court, the rules are different, but in a criminal court.....no, what can be done isn't allowed because of basic civil liberties.

The take away from this article is that they have basically set the precedent to track anyone without warrant using any means available. When challenged in court, they can use this precedent to establish legality.

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

so he is guilty?

No, but he was accused right? They have to find him and get his side of the story somehow.

sorry, but that is not guilty, still have rights.

What about the rights of the supposed victim? Doesn't she have the right for them to find this guy and question him?

reply to post by pointr97


This is exactly what I am seeing.


We already know that they can't place a GPS on your vehicle without a warrant, and they aren't supposed to tap your phone line without one. So if both of these actions require a warrant how can the court in good conscience say that it can turn on and use the GPS in your pre-paid phone? By extension it opens the door to them being able to do it to your contracted phone and possibly the GPS in your car if it is equipped.

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by pointr97
Okay, so let us play devil's advocate......

A man is accused of beating his wife (just pulled something off the wall), the cops get the mac address of his ipad and start tracking him as he hits random wireless networks. This would be acceptable?

I am sure the wife that got her arse beat wouldn't mind much. I think that would be acceptable. Yes.

so he is guilty?

No, but he was accused right? They have to find him and get his side of the story somehow.

sorry, but that is not guilty, still have rights.

What about the rights of the supposed victim? Doesn't she have the right for them to find this guy and question him?

Oh my, sorry i used that as an example, okay, victimless crime, insider trading (yes i agree, this has victims too, just go with it). So Bob is 'accused' of insider trading, the sec start tracking his phone or laptop or car without a warrant, is this justified?

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by pointr97

 

This is exactly what I am seeing.


We already know that they can't place a GPS on your vehicle without a warrant, and they aren't supposed to tap your phone line without one. So if both of these actions require a warrant how can the court in good conscience say that it can turn on and use the GPS in your pre-paid phone? By extension it opens the door to them being able to do it to your contracted phone and possibly the GPS in your car if it is equipped.

Funny thing, so today was listening to talk radio debating the pros and cons of having black boxes in cars.........this is the same thing, they just turn it on and start tracking without a warrant........because they think you did something.