Law Enforcement’s Growing Reliance On Cell Phone Data
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-25/law-enforcement%E2%80%99s-growing-reliance-cell-phone-data
Cell phones companies know a good deal about their customers:they know with whom they communicate, where they travel, and content of their text messages. This information can be a treasure trove for law enforcement agencies. Last year local, state and federal law enforcement groups made an estimated 1.3 million requests to cell phone companies for information on subscribers, and this number is growing. Current law is murky when it comes to what customer information cell phone companies are required to divulge, but most cell phone users are unaware of how slim their privacy protections actually are. Join us to talk about surveillance via cell.
Guests
Rep. Edward Markey
(D-MA 7th District) and co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus.
Eric Lichtblau
reporter for The New York Times.
Chris Calabrese
legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Michael Sussman
attorney at Perkins Coie LLP and a former federal prosecutor.
John Bottone
vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's Association.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
There are a lot of people who worry about how Law Enforcement and "The Government" are watching and tracking people that they think might be doing something suspicious. Then when something like the shooting in Aurora happens, the same people are all aghast and ask "Why didn't somebody notice that guy?". After all, he repeatedly bought THOUSANDS of rounds of ammo and other armaments. Shouldn't he have been tracked and followed by the police, or the FBI? Or do people think it would have been a violation of his rights? How suspicious does a person have to be to use this technology on them?
Sorry Arleen,but the NRA had the laws tracking guns and ammo wiped off the books. But the NRA is willing to allow a ban on Halloween masks.
Arleen, like it or not, realize it or not, most of us are controlled. Think commercials. Think Citizen's United free speech decision. Money buys control. (government) Think of the millions (over 25 million) illegal immigrants, refugees, visa holders, etc., competing with U.S. citizens for jobs. Law enforcement are prevented from singling them out.
The last time I went to Canada (2006) along with my grown-up son, we were searched thoroughly every time we crossed the border. And we made a total of six border crossings on the trip. I'm sure that we were profiled: two adult males, traveling alone. Yep, we had to get out of the car while they searched through our belongings. I'm sure they knew that we had been in and out of Canada several times, and suspected us of smuggling something. Probably families with children are rarely, if ever, searched.
This was in contrast to the first trip I ever made to Canada (1965). Just my mother and I. The Canadian officer only asked me to open the trunk, peeked in, and that was it. Coming back, the USA officer only asked a couple of questions. That was it.
But forty years ago, people weren't so paranoid as they are today. Everybody is a suspect today.
I suppose a lot of younger people don't think much about this sort of thing. But to me, it shows how much our lives have deteriorated in forty years. We have more material things, but that's all. Jobs are disappearing and trust is almost non-existent. These trends bode ill for the nation, and for the world.
While all of this is not directly relevant to cell phones, it just proves that what some call "progress" has simply created a frightened society. And the question is: how long can an insecure society survive?
I would like to ask the panel two questions. Do phone service providers allow law enforcement officials to monitor personal information without consent? Do law enforcement officials need probable cause to access information from mobile devices?
Jeez, another show demonstrating how liberal democrats will whore themselves out to the federal government for the illusion of security.
What are the administrative costs for this service that the cell carriers are providing? I assume that they are lumped into my (and everyone else's) bloated monthly cell bill.
At 1.3M requests, which is probably an underestimate, it seems that the requesting agency should pay for that service. After all, I am billed for time and text from telemarketers and fulfilling 1.3M requests per year is a lot more than a company providing that service as a courtesy.
Welcome to 1984... just 28 years later. With all the cameras, the ability of government to monitor e-mail, web searches, the books we read from the library, the next thing is obviously the monitoring of cell phones.
Conservatives would say, "if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?"
I have nothing to hide, and I don't like the idea that without probable cause any law enforcement agency can review any of my personal information. What's next?
In the last decade US citizens seem to have forgotten that there is a cost to freedom. As Paul Kennedy notes in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" one indication of the imminent decline of a nation is when it turns it focus away from external security to internal security.
I was stalked and sent abusive text messages by an old boyfriend who tried to hide his identity. It is only because of these laws that we were able to trace the information back to him and prosecute. If you are inoccent you should have nothing to hide. I have come to realize when you use modern technology you are sharing with the world so people should be cautious what they say and write.
jlynwood wrote: "Conservatives would say, "if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?"
What conservatives? names please.
Both political parties have their share of stupid people.
What do the law enforcement officers do with the information of innocent people? Is it really that big of a deal if they just discard information if it is irrelevant to the case they are trying to solve?
In all of this talk of emergencies and kidnappings, the obvious issue, conspicuous by its total absence, is the drug war. Almost every drug bust yields a cell phone, and that phone show the entire network of customers of that dealer. Easy peasy.
Huge business ahead in drones of all sizes and capabilities. The foreign wars are winding down and there seems limited political will to start new ones probably because the U.S. has run out of meaningful enemies that can´t defend themselves. So, the armaments industry will turn to the domestic market. Police drones, CIA drones, NSA drones.
Many of these are the small spying thingies. They are evolving very fast too. A drone the size of a AAA battery that can sit on a window ledge. Privacy is a thing of the past.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
I was date-raped a few years ago, and the only evidence I had was my cell phone with an apology text from the assailant. This was enough for the police to (fortunately) believe me and pursue the case until he pleaded guilty.
Ironically, I have abandoned such technology since then -- deleted all online profiles and got a pre-paid cell phone, etc. -- because I was paranoid about he or his friends finding me.
So ... I can see both sides!
What good is all that collection if they couldn't stop the Aurora killer?
Before the Patriot Act, NSA wasn't allowed to collect on American Citizens. This is due to an issue that arose in the 1970's where it was found that NSA was data mining in correlation with AT&T as part of a partnership since AT&T's original network was government subsidized. It was further found that NSA was sending confidential business plans and traffic from foreign companies to American Companies and is cronicled in Bamfields "Chamber of Secrets".
I haven't heard discussed the Patriot Act. I work for a telephone company and the Patriot Act requires us to provide to an FBI agent or Homeland Security officer anything he or she asks for -- just on the personal request, no court order, subpoena, etc. Just the personal request. We are to designate one point of contact and that person is forbidden by law to divulge that the request was made or anything about the request. The agent could be looking for nothing more than an old girl friend, and ex-wife, a debtor, or someone who spoke nasty to him in a bar. Talk about scary invasions of privacy!!!
Rather 'archaic' the topic: invasion of privacy in the age of smartphones. The tip of the malignancy. I'm surprised to note how 'naive' and 'simplistic' some NPR conversations are. Data-tracking on cellphones is done by the keystroke. Location data, whether phone is on or off, is collected routinely. The speaker in defense of internal affairs discusses how important a variety of tracking is but does not really address the prescience of what constitutes 'an emergency'. We are living in an age where PCs are hacked, FB is about to institute FACE RECOGNITION [read Al Franken], and vendors collect information on everything about your lifestyle, your keystrokes AND your credit cards. No mention was made about the business world. For example, E-Readers data is collected daily. The page you are on, the book you are reading, how long to finish. [as per Wall Street Journal]. We're looking for a national standard for what no one can even measure in terms of applicability and for a vast universe which changes daily. For goodness sake, Congress could not even enact an anti-piracy bill. When a security expert on fraud appears on Anderson Cooper and explains how easy it is for anyone to tap into your phone log, and call with a friend's identity, we all ought know by now, the nature of the beast. Still, its dialogue. Thanks Diane.
I will only comment here to say that the Nation's security comes first. If one seeks to circumvent law enforcement then all means necessary should be used to identify them. I can share that there are methodologies and technologies being presented to government that will surely reduce crime at all levels, as well as expose and prosecute corruption and money laundering.
Stay tuned
"jlynwood wrote:
Welcome to 1984... just 28 years later. With all the cameras,
the ability of government to monitor e-mail, web searches,
the books we read from the library, the next thing is
obviously the monitoring of cell phones.
Conservatives would say, "if you have nothing to hide, why
worry about it?"
I have nothing to hide, and I don't like the idea that
without probable cause any law enforcement agency can review
any of my personal information. What's next?
July 25, 2012 - 10:21 am"
Law Enforcement's ability to control your data is Law
Enforcement's ability to frame you should the need arise. If you don't have
anything to hide, they'll give you something.
And they do it all the time!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"jlynwood wrote:
Welcome to 1984... just 28 years later. With all the cameras,
the ability of government to monitor e-mail, web searches,
the books we read from the library, the next thing is
obviously the monitoring of cell phones...
July 25, 2012 - 10:21 am"
In 1984, the Jewish oriented "News" Magazines were gorged
with articles, 2 or 3 or more per issue, Pooh-poohing the
notions of some people who believed that the Orwellian World had indeed come to pass.
I have diligently searched the Archives of the magazines that
are available and have been unable to find a single one of those articles.
NSA monitored international phone calls by means of Keyword analysis on digital data directly or with Voice to "Text" conversion with the whole conversation saved on Magnetic tape for later human evaluation if suspicious.
In 1984, NSA installed a newer generation of computers with faster Keyword Analysis and hard drive storage of the
conversations replacing tape.
They said they "could" now monitor every international call in and out of the US, but "wouldn't"
At the beginning of the Afghan Adventure, NSA was doing a lot of blabbing about being able to intercept any phone of any type in the World and particularly about tracking Osama bin Laden.
But when Bush realized his dear Friend could be hurt or G_d forbid, killed, the NSA started back-pedaling and began to claim that bin Laden was outsmarting them at every turn and they lost him.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Rick.Warren wrote:
This is due to an issue that arose in the 1970's where it
was found that NSA was data mining in correlation with AT&T as part of a partnership since AT&T's original network was government subsidized. It was further found that NSA was sending confidential business plans and traffic from foreign companies to American Companies and is cronicled in Bamfields
"Chamber of Secrets".
July 25, 2012 - 10:57 am
During that era, it was cheaper for an American (or Ally or
Business Competitor or enemy or anybody) to make Europe to Europe, say, calls by routing them through American lines
(and thus through the NSA Monitor) than to call point to
point.
That explains part of the subsidies- snooping and espionage.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
John Bottone suggests they are only looking at specific crimes, when in fact, law enforcement routinely asks for cell tower "dumps" that pull information on all subscribers to that tower, thus building up a database of people, their phone numbers and location. It's merely a fishing expedition because they can do it. Many of the "emergencies" they speak about, aren't emergencies at all, just an opportunity to capture boatloads of data on people.
Regarding dispensable, or "burner" phones.. I think it's very telling that he wants everyone to be required to provide ID and CC info when purchasing a phone... that would make things a lot easier wouldn't it Mr. Bottone? He doesn't take into account that many people purchase these phones because THEY CANNOT AFFORD A CONTRACT CELLPHONE!! Not everyone can afford the outrageous fees that carriers charge for a 2 yr contract, yet, to even do anything in today's society, you need some type of cellphone. And of course, some of us do realize that law enforcement has turned into big brother, and purchase these phones because they no longer trust law enforcement.
Lastly, whenever people are stopped, law enforcement loves to try to get access to your cellphone. If it's on your person, they can do a weapons check, and then grab your cellphone. They have all kinds of tools to extract all your personal information from that phone, including location information, text messages, contacts, etc. I suggest leaving your phone outside your person, in your vehicle and saying "NO!" when asked if they can search your vehicle. They'll try to pressure you into it, and maybe even succeed, but if you continually say no, it may not hold up in court.
We have laws allowing gun purchases without proper ID, or selling them on an open market, yet, he suggests that cellphones should be properly "registered".