Cops and Cell Phone Info

[GetUpStandUp]

smart phones man, you guys are walking around with a bug, and gps at all times. it's a wonder a lot more of us aren't in prison.

Hell yeah, lol see now a days smart aint smart.

 

[Dorky]

My friend made a lead box so his company could not track him. When he wanted to leave work and go to the bar. Crafty drunk.

 

[Strainhunter]

My friend made a lead box so his company could not track him. When he wanted to leave work and go to the bar. Crafty drunk.

A lead box huh!?

Why didn't he buy a film guard bag or case for $9.99 instead of lugging around a home made lead box?

 

[MaynardG_Krebs]

A lead box huh!?

Why didn't he buy a film guard bag or case for $9.99 instead of lugging around a home made lead box?

Sounds like hooie to me too..

mgk

 

[LovableHuggable]

Everyone should read this.


A month ago, we learned that more (and maybe many, many more) than 1.3 million people's cell phone data were handed over to US law enforcement agencies in 2011 alone. Text messages, caller locations, and records of who called whom and for how long had all been shared without a judges' approval -- because, according to current law, no approval is needed.

Last week, the Congressman who helped reveal how rampant and unregulated that sharing is introduced legislation to start restraining it. Called the "Wireless Surveillance Act of 2012," the new bill, in the words of its Massachusetts's Edward Markey, attempts to "update the 4th amendment for the 21st century."

The discussion draft*of the*Surveillance*Act, according to Markey, would immediately:

-- limit how and why enforcement agencies can ask for "tower dumps." Tower dumps, in the words of ProPublica reporter Megha Rajaopalan:

list every phone in range of a cell tower at a particular time. In cities, where cell towers are located close together, it is possible that the locations of thousands of people might be swept up in a single request.

According to the Congressman, the new bill would tailor the kind of information that can be requested in "dumps" and make them less frequent.

--*apply home search standards to cell phone location requests. Right now, law enforcement forces can request the location of your cell phone (and thus, presumably, you) from your provider without getting a judge's approval. The bill would require approval.

--*account for which officials asked for "emergency" data when. The most frequent reason these kinds of cell phone requests are used, law enforcement officials say, is to solve kidnappings and similar crimes where location and time are of the essence. Markey's bill attempts to account for these situations by requiring "a signed, sworn statement from law enforcement authorities after receipt of information from a carrier that justifies the need for the emergency access."

Markey's bill also requires law enforcement agencies to better manage cell phone data. After Markey asked providers for information on cell phone data requests in April, the revelation about the extent of tracking was huge and made front-page headlines. This new bill would require law enforcement agencies regularly issue reports about the extent of their tracking. The bill would also allow the FCC to regulate how long law enforcement agencies could hold onto data. Right now, no limits exist, and, with or without a reason, agencies can save personal information (including texts, location data, and call records) indefinitely.

It's funny how basic some of these provisions seem. A judge's approval for location tracking. Requirements on how long an agency can just hold onto texts. But this legislation isn't on the books and the restrictions it contains won't exist unless it -- or something like -- is signed into law.


http://m.theatlantic.com/technology...e-they-can-see-your-texts-or-location/261116/

 

[headband 707]

I like the part where they can turn your cell phone into a listening device now is somthing to think about ppl.. Oh we are so free like Russia or China welcome to the "New World Order"

There was a Youtube video removed twice BY Youtube about our Gov surveilance but because this site is not into politics I won't post it The heading says this video was removed twice by youtube.. Great video with Ron Paul saying how he wants to audit the feds .. and stop all this BS.. headband 707

 

[myiqis55]

these high tech devices can be used to your advantage as well. lets say the feds are tracking you via gps on your phone... leave it at home. leave it in your girls purse "on accident". they'll be thinking your at the mall or sitting at home when your running to your warehouse. do what I do, leave the phone at home. drive my car to my parents and borrow my dads car to go where I need to. track me now

 

[growshopfrank]

if anyone is interested here is a link to a company that sells forensic equipment to LEO's some of the software capabilities are quite interesting
http://www.cellebrite.com/

 

[norcal_sourD]

GSfrank, I remember that link being posted in Security section a while back . Was an eye-opener fo sho about the wiped data recovery EVEN when SIM card is removed if I recall correctly...does anyone remember the thread about the devices to negate cell phones?? Believe it was a portable unit, highly illegal. would love to get my lil fingies on one of those, wpuld be fun at movies n restaurants

 

[ninfan77]

And to make matters worse.. the 6th court of appeals has ruled that warrantless CELL phone tracking is legal. If ya'll remember the US Supreme court ruled recently that GPS tracking via a device on a car is illegal w/out a warrant... this is a total game changer...

An interstate drug trafficker hauling a motorhome filled with marijuana isn’t the most sympathetic defendant. But a federal court’s declaration that Melvin Skinner pretty much should’ve known his pre-paid cellphone could be tracked via GPS — and therefore cops didn’t require a warrant to track him — has repercussions that privacy advocates say deserve your attention.

Even if you don’t drive around in recreational vehicles loaded down more than a thousand pounds of pot.

On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement officials don’t need a warrant to track suspects via cellphones. Attorneys argued to overturn Skinner’s many convictions, citing that the GPS location information that led to the defendant’s arrest was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. This didn’t wash with the majority of judges over the case, who voted in a 2-1 ruling.

“When criminals use modern technological devices to carry out criminal acts and to reduce the possibility of detection, they can hardly complain when the police take advantage of the inherent characteristics of those very devices to catch them,” wrote Judge John Rogers in the majority opinion that will affect future cases in a huge chunk of the country.

Skinner was arrested in 2006, with 1,100 pounds of marijuana in the motorhome he was driving, after law enforcement officials tracked him via one of the pre-paid phones the drug ring purchased using false identities. Such “burner” phones are regularly discarded by criminals to avoid tracking. In this case however, officials obtained Skinner’s number from another member of the ring, and then a court order that required the cellphone company to disclose “cell site information, GPS real-time location, and ‘ping’ data” for Skinner’s phone.

Accessing this information, law enforced trailed Skinner to a Texas rest area where a drug-sniffing dog turned up 1,100 pounds of pot in the motorhome he was driving. Skinner was arrested, of course, and was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, aiding and abetting the attempt to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana — charges his lawyers say were derived by a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Here's the crux, as it may relate to everyone else: "There is no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone." That's what Judge Rogers stated in the in the majority opinion, where he cited the Stored Communications Act. The law hamstrings the Fourth Amendment in relation to wire and electronic communications — noting that the use of third-party providers diminishes a person's expectation of privacy.

Rogers maintains his statement within the context of committing a crime. As the judge writes, "If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal." Failing that, "technology would help criminals but not the police."

This ruling is creating cognitive dissonance among privacy advocates who note that in January, all nine members of the Supreme Court held that warrantless GPS tracking is unconstitutional. In that case, police tracked suspected drug dealer Antoine Jones for 28 days — without a warrant — via a GPS device they’d attached to his car.

"That the officers were able to use less expensive and more efficient means to track the vehicles is only to their credit," he wrote.

Given the ubiquity of cellphones — most of which come with some form of GPS automatically enabled — this latest ruling rings a warning bell among privacy advocates.

"Location data is extraordinarily sensitive. It can reveal where you worship, where your family and friends live, what sort of doctors you visit, and what meetings and activities you attend," Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Marcia Hofmann wrote in a blog post prior to the court's decision.

"Whether this information is collected by a GPS device or a mobile phone company, the government should only be able to get it with a warrant based on probable cause that's approved by a judge."

"The 6th Circuit’s cell-tracking opinion is really disappointing. It’s the first appeals court decision about cell tracking after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones and I’d hoped for a better result," Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, told NBC News.

Crump led the ACLU’s blockbuster analysis of collection of cellphone location data by local police. The results, released earlier this year, revealed that many of the 200 law enforcement agencies that responded to the ACLU’s public records request, track cellphones without a warrant.

In this latest, ruling, Crump said, “the court seems to think that if criminals use cellphones, they can hardly complain if they are tracked through these phones. But the court’s reasoning deprives all of us of constitutional protection against warrantless cellphone tracking. And besides, even suspected bad guys have constitutional rights.”

 

[BrnCow]

It's illegal to use one electronic device to track cars without a warrant but is legal to use another electronic tracking device to track cars without a warrant...double standards...

 

[headband 707]

It's illegal to use one electronic device to track cars without a warrant but is legal to use another electronic tracking device to track cars without a warrant...double standards...

Remember if they can turn your phone on they can also turn your computer on , headband 707

 

[TB Gardens]

if he would have pulled his battery it would have worked

Not true. Phone can still be located, they can still capture audio even with no battery in phone

 

[ninfan77]

Not true. Phone can still be located, they can still capture audio even with no battery in phone

How do you know this? I can't believe a phone works w/out a battery...

 

[Grass Lands]

How do you know this? I can't believe a phone works w/out a battery...

Its called trickle power...just like the HP servers I used to work with many moons ago...can be turned on remotely if you know the IP and the login...

Why do you think we have gone to a digital world, back in the day of ANALOG...tracking was damn near non-existent.

GL

 

[MaynardG_Krebs]

Not true. Phone can still be located, they can still capture audio even with no battery in phone

Poppycock says I!

mgk

 

[headband 707]

If they can change the weather with nano tech what makes you think they can't track your turned off phone LOL headband 707

 

[LovableHuggable]

Listening to your phone remotely wastes power just like talking on it does. If they could store enough power without a battery to turn a phone on I'd be super shocked. I can barely keep enough power in 3800mah to run my screen for 5 hours or talk for 4. So yeah they can't just listen to you remotely by using your device without you knowing it.

But like the article said they don't need to listen to you. Your cell company already records it on their end so you never know it's occurring and the article I posted says cops can have that info without a warrant.

The reason ppl say they can turn it on even when off is because they did load an older phone of a mob mans and they loaded software on it to turn on while he talked to someone. This was very pinpoint and nothing to worry about. What you worry about is the paragraph above.

Now you could go further and you may use more than one phone. They may tower dump your known phone enough which means they get your unknown lines too and may be able to figure out your unknown lines based on them always on the tower of your known lines. Obv the more you travel the easier you are to catch as each tower gives them a new dump and more data to analyze.

 

[ninfan77]

Its called trickle power...just like the HP servers I used to work with many moons ago...can be turned on remotely if you know the IP and the login...

Why do you think we have gone to a digital world, back in the day of ANALOG...tracking was damn near non-existent.

GL

HP server is STILL plugged into the wall, which you can "wake up" via remote login.

If a cell phone has NO power (no battery), there's no way I can see that it can "trickle" anything... I still call BS on that particular comment.

Besides that point, we all need to be REALLY concerned about the direction that the courts are going related to privacy issues.