Say Hello and this will be norm ( POlice ALLOWED to track youre calls, all kinds )

[claud3]

The US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when carrying cell phones, allowing police to track GPS signals without a warrant or probable cause.

The decision came the court ruled in United States v. Skinner that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) abided by the Constitution by using a drug runner’s cellphone data to track his location and determine his identity.

Melvin Skinner, also known by his false name as “Big Foot,” was a drug mule with more than 1,100 pounds of marijuana in his Texas motorhome.

The throwaway mobile phone he was using was registered under a false name, so agents did not know the identity of the drug trafficker.

By using GPS data from his disposable phone, police learned that “Big Foot” was planning to deliver a large shipment of marijuana from Arizona to Tennessee in his mobile home.

In 2006, agents obtained a court order – but not a warrant – to track the disposable phone’s location using its GPS.

After tracing the phone’s exact location, police dogs discovered the mobile home and indicated a presence of drugs. “Big Foot” was arrested and charged for drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

But on appeal, the defendant argued that his cell phone data could not be used because the DEA failed to obtain a warrant for it, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without the issuance of a warrant obtained due to probable cause.

The Court considers cell phone use to be a public – not private – action, thereby being ineligible for the protections of the Fourth Amendment. A court brief of the case states that “a suspect’s presence in a publicly observable place is not information subject to Fourth Amendment protection.”

Additionally, Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the majority, said Skinner “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.”

While any US cell phone can now be tracked by police without probable cause or a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that police must obtain a warrant before secretly attacking a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car.

That ruling is currently being contested, leaving the possibility for police to secretly track vehicles without permission. Without the requirement of a warrant to access cell phone data, US authorities are gaining increasing power over what some would consider “private” rights of individuals – but what the Courts call “public.”

http://rt.com/usa/news/police-track-cell-court-979/

So no matter were you are you will be tracked

[akhi216]

Good thing I'm not a criminal.

[claud3]

Your response to a tracker of all calls mate and i mean all calls. The ones you make to your girlfriend and mum

[Dave]

Lol Claud3, you're not even close. They're not being given the ability to track your phone calls and to who; they're being given the ability to track your location through your cell phone. That's a completely different thing.

[keefy]

I do not like the sound of this.

You used the wrong your.

[claud3]

Lol Claud3, you're not even close. They're not being given the ability to track your phone calls and to who; they're being given the ability to track your location through your cell phone. That's a completely different thing.

my phone calls to the ice man is personal and it is a lot of cubed decision and cold decisions mate lol

[Morganator]

Lol Claud3, you're not even close. They're not being given the ability to track your phone calls and to who; they're being given the ability to track your location through your cell phone. That's a completely different thing.

Except, it's still a violation of the fourth amendment. The judge can say it doesn't apply all he wants but it doesn't make him any less wrong about it. Furthermore, nowhere in the constitution, are the authorities given this kind of power. By doing so, the DEA violated the ninth, tenth and fourteenth amendments. The DEA's actions were wholly illegal, extrajudicial and unconstitutional.

[F34R]

There's nothing wrong with this one. Sorry.

First off, that article in the OP is a piece of trash.

Second:

Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the majority, agreed:

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 cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal. The law cannot be that a criminal is entitled to rely on the expected untrackability of his tools. 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.

[DeviousOne]

This will not be the norm....Conflicts with federal,constitutional, and state laws. Good luck tracking me without a court ordered warrant =)

[F34R]

This will not be the norm....Conflicts with federal,constitutional, and state laws. Good luck tracking me without a court ordered warrant =)

If your phone is giving off a signal, then being able to track it isn't unconstitutional at all. That's one of the reasons the title, and the article are completely absurd. This doesn't have a single thing to do with calls, or tracking people just for the heck of it, etc.

It'd probably help if people would actually read the case, the rulings, etc. Otherwise, just reading stupid articles that have turned it around completely, makes people against things that aren't even happening.

[DeviousOne]

If your phone is giving off a signal, then being able to track it isn't unconstitutional at all. That's one of the reasons the title, and the article are completely absurd. This doesn't have a single thing to do with calls, or tracking people just for the heck of it, etc.

It'd probably help if people would actually read the case, the rulings, etc. Otherwise, just reading stupid articles that have turned it around completely, makes people against things that aren't even happening.

Basically the article is completely out of line and misleading. While my phone gives off a signal the contents of my phone conversations and text messages are private and can not be RANDOMLY monitor unless it was court ordered. This idea how the government is going to have total control of your calls and all that is ludicrous.

If anyone seriously believes this article i invite you to do some real research and lastly dont break any laws you'll be OK

[F34R]

Basically the article is completely out of line and misleading. While my phone gives off a signal the contents of my phone conversations and text messages are private and can not be RANDOMLY monitor unless it was court ordered. This idea how the government is going to have total control of your calls and all that is ludicrous.

If anyone seriously believes this article i invite you to do some real research and lastly dont break any laws you'll be OK

That is all correct. +rep

[Morganator]

So the fact that this person was tracked without a warrant doesn't mean that the ninth or tenth amendment and certainly the fourteenth amendment don't apply to criminal law? How about the fact that nowhere in the constitution, are drugs of any sort, illegal? I hate to say it but, an illegal wiretap is an illegal wiretap is an illegal wiretap. Data was mined from his phone, in violation of the fourth amendment. Data isn't relegated to phone calls or texts. Data is data an no matter how it's obtained, probable cause AND a warrant ARE prerequisites for obtaining said data. This is a complete disregard for the constitution, yet again and the judge should be stripped of his position.

[F34R]

So the fact that this person was tracked without a warrant doesn't mean that the ninth or tenth amendment and certainly the fourteenth amendment don't apply to criminal law? How about the fact that nowhere in the constitution, are drugs of any sort, illegal? I hate to say it but, an illegal wiretap is an illegal wiretap is an illegal wiretap. Data was mined from his phone, in violation of the fourth amendment. Data isn't relegated to phone calls or texts. Data is data an no matter how it's obtained, probable cause AND a warrant ARE prerequisites for obtaining said data. This is a complete disregard for the constitution, yet again and the judge should be stripped of his position.

There isn't any wiretap involved in this. Data wasn't mined from his phone. A warrant to track someone? Wtf? I need a warrant to allow a bloodhound to follow a scent of a criminal? I need to get a warrant to follow a car that was being driven by a guy that killed someone?

You kinda need to actually read what went on here instead of relying on this bullshit article that was posted here.

[Morganator]

There isn't any wiretap involved in this. Data wasn't mined from his phone. A warrant to track someone? Wtf? I need a warrant to allow a bloodhound to follow a scent of a criminal? I need to get a warrant to follow a car that was being driven by a guy that killed someone?

You kinda need to actually read what went on here instead of relying on this bullshit article that was posted here.

Was his phone or its features used in tracking the guy? Yes or No

Fact is, the phone was and is private property. It doesn't matter how you or anyone else wants to word this. Private property cannot be involved without the issuance of a warrant. It doesn't matter that you think it would give the criminal an unfair advantage. As for the bloodhound, if it involves the bloodhound being on private property, then yes and only yes if the police have reasonable and probable cause. As for the car, again, if the car isn't otherwise reported stolen and there is other reasonable and probable cause, you should still have a warrant to track it as it is private property.

[F34R]

Was his phone or its features used in tracking the guy? Yes or No

Fact is, the phone was and is private property. It doesn't matter how you or anyone else wants to word this. Private property cannot be involved without the issuance of a warrant. It doesn't matter that you think it would give the criminal an unfair advantage. As for the bloodhound, if it involves the bloodhound being on private property, then yes and only yes if the police have reasonable and probable cause. As for the car, again, if the car isn't otherwise reported stolen and there is other reasonable and probable cause, you should still have a warrant to track it as it is private property.

Sorry, you're just lost I guess. They didn't use THE PHONE. They didn't take anything off his phone. This doesn't have a single thing about invading private property. There isn't any expectation of privacy in public places.

[Yuuichi]

I know there have been cases where they have used cell phones to track and find missing kids. At work on my phone so can't post any yet but will when I get home.

It is not they going to waste time tracking every tom dick and harry. They have been doing this for years I thought.

[claud3]

Guys Guys Guys, you are not getting it. They track all kinds of calls and have been for decades. This is nothing new in my opinion and they will always track your calls and it wont stop. The internet when it was first around was tracked from the get go, so saying they are not allowed is false, becuase its always been happening.. guys having this sense of its against the law is so stupid. Becuase this is how it has been for decades

[DeviousOne]

Ugh.... Lol

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[Morganator]

Sorry, you're just lost I guess. They didn't use THE PHONE. They didn't take anything off his phone. This doesn't have a single thing about invading private property. There isn't any expectation of privacy in public places.

Then why was it mentioned at all? If it didn't get used and had no part in the case, fine, if it did, then my point stands.

[claud3]

still stand by my above post and will always... we have been tracked for decades and always will, its a fact of life and governments have been tracking the us for more then decades. Not only on phones but through other means

[Dave]

Except, it's still a violation of the fourth amendment. The judge can say it doesn't apply all he wants but it doesn't make him any less wrong about it. Furthermore, nowhere in the constitution, are the authorities given this kind of power. By doing so, the DEA violated the ninth, tenth and fourteenth amendments. The DEA's actions were wholly illegal, extrajudicial and unconstitutional.

Tracking a phone via satellite GPS location isn't private property. You don't own satellite signals just because you bought your phone.

[F34R]

Guys Guys Guys, you are not getting it. They track all kinds of calls and have been for decades. This is nothing new in my opinion and they will always track your calls and it wont stop. The internet when it was first around was tracked from the get go, so saying they are not allowed is false, becuase its always been happening.. guys having this sense of its against the law is so stupid. Becuase this is how it has been for decades

None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand, period.

Then why was it mentioned at all? If it didn't get used and had no part in the case, fine, if it did, then my point stands.

Where was it mentioned?

[-Kwesnoth-]

If anyone seriously believes this article i invite you to do some real research and lastly dont break any laws you'll be OK

This is what I figure. If you ain't got nothing to hide, then don't worry about it.

[claud3]

Its true, they track you always