Perspective: E-tracking through your cell phone

(continued from previous page)

felon-on-the-run in an actual emergency. Current law allows agents to do precisely that because there would be ample evidence of wrongdoing, or probable cause, that they can present to a judge.

The problem is that the Justice Department's current official position--a flip-flop from its previous official position--says police should be able to secretly monitor your whereabouts as long as they claim that tracking could possibly be "relevant" to some investigation. Not only is that insufficiently privacy-protective, it doesn't track what the law actually says.

Some judges are courageous enough to point this out. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan in Wisconsin last month denied the Justice Department's request to track a suspected drug user through his Cingular Wireless phone. The feds were helping out on behalf of the Wisconsin narcotics bureau, which claimed in court documents that "by obtaining cell site information for (the target's) cellular telephone, it may be able to determine (his) source for cocaine."

Nobody is saying, of course, that police should be denied the ability to locate a felon-on-the-run in an actual emergency.

Citing Freeh's testimony, Callahan said it was abundantly clear that "the language which found its way into the law was predicated on the director's assertion to Congress that (the law) would not be used to secure location information for the cellular phone user." But, Callahan noted, prosecutors are relying on "precisely" that language today.

"I cannot find any contemporaneous understanding by either Director Freeh or the Congress that the government had the capability that it now has to ascertain the location of a person using a cell phone," Callahan added.

It's true that in the case before Callahan, prosecutors were asking for the location of Cingular cell towers being used by the cell phone only when calls were being made, not when the handset was idle. That yields only a rough approximation of a location, depending on how many towers there are nearby.

But given the Justice Department's logic, there's nothing stopping prosecutors from asking for more data next time. Thanks to regulations from the Federal Communications Commission, wireless handsets must know their locations within a few hundred feet, regardless of whether their owner wants it. Some newer gadgets, such as the Hewlett-Packard's iPaq hw6515, have built-in GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers that are far more precise.

Those detailed data streams are potentially available to police. In one court document (click here for PDF), U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia claims, "A cell phone user voluntarily transmits a signal to the cell phone company and thereby assumes the risk that the cell phone provider will reveal to law enforcement the cell site information."

Consider the implications. If you voluntarily transmit your exact GPS-derived location to a cellular provider--so you can get information returned about nearby restaurants or driving directions--the Justice Department apparently believes that your location should be available without a warrant.

That's not what Louis Freeh promised, that's not what Congress wrote, and that's not what a majority of federal judges who have looked at this have decided. But for now, there's nothing stopping prosecutors from shopping around and finding a sympathetic judge who will find some way to interpret the law in their favor next time.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

[rtaggert]

Did they pinky swear?

Louis Freeh may very well have been true to his word about the FBI's use of surveillance. However, it is foolish to expect the promises of one Director's administration to be upheld by another. Congress has a notorious reputation for imposing on rights. Perhaps a Supreme Court decision on this matter will clarify any rights Americans have with regard to the tracking of personal digital consumer products by commercial and governmental groups.

[jesdog]

May not be as good as you think.

The present Supreme Court might find probable cause in someone's dream, or nightmare. You may not like the result. So don't buy a GPS based phone, or not only will cops get to you, so will your spouses lawyer and his subpoena. Good luck.

[scribblese]

I sleep better at night knowing that the government is watching most everybody all of the time. The goal is to learn how they do it and avoid that if possible. I still consider it an invasion of privacy, but with some crazy people these days I'll accept it.