SCOTUS: go get a warrant for cell phone location data

I served for 41 years in law enforcement, retiring in 2016.

As an officer I labored for the federal side and the local side. Whilst in Detectives I happened to work in Theft, Warrants, Child Abuse, Sex Assaults, Robbery and finally Homicide. I had to get arrest warrants. I had to get search warrants. I had to write and submit affidavits and warrant requests with my hero pages. If I had to do it, the rest of law enforcement should have to do it. I had to respect the 4th Amendment. All of law enforcement should have to respect the 4th Amendment.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Supreme Court rules warrant required for cellphone location data

by Alex Swoyer

The Supreme Court on Friday said the government must obtain a search warrant before demanding an individual’s cellphone location records from a telecommunications company.

In the 5-4 decision, the court said it’s a violation of the 4th Amendment for police to search a suspect’s cell-site location information (CSLI), which is stored by a telecommunications company, without a warrant.

The case arose when a defendant was convicted of a series of robberies based on his cellphone location data. He moved to suppress the evidence, saying the records were obtained without a warrant and thus violated his 4th Amendment protection.

The lower courts sided with the government, but the high court decided the 4th Amendment’s guarantee to privacy extends to new age technology.

“A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion.

Yes, I was in law enforcement. But I had to obey the law. On the federal side I could acquire pen registers and Title IIIs. With warrant requests and applications. And they came with serious limitations “back in the day” when you had reel-to-reel recorders. You couldn’t just activate the recorder and perch all day. You could only listen for a brief time and then switch off if you heard nothing. Timing was everything.

Technology is confounding, certainly. But law enforcement can get lazy and can’t afford to. My advice to cops: don’t get lazy. On homicide scenes, depending on the case, I may have had possession of a house or a certain scene but in order to buttress my case I also went to a judge and acquired a search warrant to make my investigation more bulletproof.

The government had argued the information was kept by a third party, the telecommunications company, so it did not violate the suspect’s 4th Amendment rights.

This isn’t rocket science. Everyone knows that most people leave the GPS activated on their cell phones and by doing so the cell provider knows, generally, where the phone — and hence you — are located. Truly, you don’t even have to activate GPS. The cell towers just know.

But the court said a company’s constant tracking of an individual carries concerns.

“In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection,” Justice Roberts wrote.

He was joined by the courts’ four Democratic appointed justices, but the court’s four Republican appointed justices disagreed with the holding.

This next bit of information aligns with my way of thinking and the analogy is proper and correct.

The ruling follows a case six years ago where the court said a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Allow me to go a bit further. Your cell phone is much more than a simple communications device that allows you to talk to people. It is a texting machine, a camera, an audio recorder, a video recorder and, frankly, a computer. People have their lives in their cell phones these days. Breaking into someone’s cell phone is not unlike breaking into their personal computer at home.

Also, quite a number of law enforcement agencies have Stingrays these days. This is a device called an IMSI catcher. It can be used to track and locate cell devices and users, block signals, intercept communications content, force cell phones to disconnect from their standard carriers and connect to it — and a host of other functions. See the graphic.

If you’re in or near an urban center and not under the flight pattern of a military base or commercial airport, you know that air traffic is a fraction of what it used to be when I was growing up. To even see a military aircraft these days is an uncommon occurrence. But have you ever heard a small plane buzzing about at night in what seems to be some kind of a pattern for a lengthy period of time?

Chances are pretty good that its occupants work for a federal, state or local law enforcement agency and that they are employing a Stingray or a variant.

This, then, is of note from Engadget.com:

Court rules Stingray use without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment

by Mallory Locklear

The ruling could have widespread implications for the technology.

Today, the Washington DC Court of Appeals overturned a Superior Court conviction of a man who was located by police using a cell-site simulator, or Stingray, CBS News reports. The court ruled that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement tracked down the suspect using his own cell phone without a warrant.

Stingrays work by pretending to be a cell tower and once they’re brought close enough to a particular phone, that phone pings a signal off of them. The Stingray then grabs onto that signal and allows whoever’s using it to locate the phone in question. These sorts of devices are used by a number of different agencies including the FBIICE, the IRS as well as policeofficers.

The use of cell-site simulators, especially without a warrant, has come under question a few times in recent years. In 2016, a federal judge suppressed DEA evidence obtained via such a device, the first time a federal judge had done so. Last year, members of Congress called for legislation that would protect citizens’ privacy and require a warrant before Stingrays could be used by law enforcement. Two such bills were introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year.

Obviously, this is my Libertarian side coming out. I am a great advocate of privacy — and why I say:

When I was a law enforcement officer, I had to acquire search warrants. There is no reason current law enforcement shouldn’t do the same thing. It will help your case to acquire even more strength. If you lack PC for said warrant, you’d best start rethinking your case.

BZ

 

When you hitch your star to liars

hillary-clinton-pleading-not-to-be-jailedExpect not to be believed.

That would include Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, the American Media Maggots, NBC and, now, women that have miraculously appeared out of the woodwork just a few days from the third and final debate between HRC and Donald Trump upon alleged events that are decades old.

How can one believe the American Media Maggots when Wikileaks reveals that they are “all in” for Hillary Rodham Clinton, facts be damned?

Any semblance of objectivity or detachment from the election has been totally eschewed by the AMM, They have foresworn every national precept or hint of equanimity, fairness or impartiality. They now insert themselves, at will and with unbridled and naked abandon, into every political scheme, event, bill or notation that promotes Demorats, Leftists, progressives and excoriates the GOP, Conservatives or, to my mind, logic, common sense, proportion, rationality and history. It is shameless.

The AMM is obsessed with Trump “scandals” and is doing its level best to bury those of Hillary Rodham Clinton, her staff, support, and her husband, William Jefferson Clinton.

We have a presidential candidate, in the form of Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose entire campaign is predicated but upon lies, fear and deceit. This is the candidate the AMM have obviously and broadly pledged to support — again — facts be damned.

Because, to a large degree, the American Media Maggots are gatekeepers to whatever facts they deign to allow us proles, groundlings, serfs and commoners to witness.

Let us examine morning show media coverage the day I wrote this post, Friday, October 14th.

  • ABC, coverage of Trump allegations: 9 minutes. HRC & Wikileaks: NO MENTION.
  • CBS: coverage of Trump allegations: 7 minutes. HRC & Wikileaks: 1 minute.
  • NBC: coverage of Trump allegations: 7 minutes. HRC & Wikileaks: 30 seconds.

The Wikileaks emails don’t just cover one topic; they cover numerous topics with regard to the scandalous conduct of HRC and her staff.

Just as the AMM say that Trump’s staff represents Trump, so does HRC’s staff represent Hillary Clinton. If we are to be fair and unbiased, that standard must be true.

It is they who determine which events to cover, or not.  It is they who determine which rejoinder to publish, or not.  It is they who determine which fact pattern to publish, or not. It is they who determine what stories or evidence to publish, or not. It is they who determine.

The American Media Maggots no longer “cover” the news, they attempt to spin, ignore or create their own news with themselves at the center of their universe.

Friday’s Wikileaks 7th release batch included more emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, conspiring to protect the emails between Hillary Clinton and Mr Obama — as I earlier detailed here. Now, there is unadulterated documentation of same.

“THINK WE SHOULD HOLD EMAILS TO AND FROM POTUS? THAT’S THE HEART OF HIS EXEC PRIVILEGE. WE COULD GET THEM TO ASK FOR THAT. THEY MAY NOT CARE, BUTI SEEMS LIKE THEY WILL.”

What do you suppose would happen had Donald Trump deleted 33,000 emails following a Congressional subpoena? Proven to have used a software scrubber called BLEACH BIT?

I wonder how many American citizens or soldiers Donald Trump was complicit in ignoring or killing? I wonder how many countries Donald Trump has destabilized? I wonder how many resets Donald Trump gave the Russians? I wonder how many times Donald Trump has lied under subpoena? I wonder how much Donald Trump has excused and embraced Islam? I wonder how many iPhones Donald Trump had destroyed? I wonder how many emails Donald Trump destroyed? I wonder how many soldiers and survivors Donald Trump has lied to, directly? I wonder how many rapists Donald Trump has supported and covered for? I wonder how many rape suspects he’s defended and then laughed at the victims?

“Kept ignorant and compliant at any cost.” That is the motto of the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and its staff and supporters.

Intellectual fascism? Intellectual Marxism? Creative censorship? A “consensus of facts”? A “unanimity of facts”?

Who is kept ignorant and compliant?

You, ladies and gentlemen.

And me.

BZ

 

Pushing a Gary Johnson Libertarian third party?

Gary Johnson LibertarianLibertarian Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico, is being pushed as a prospective Third Party candidate opposing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Gary Johnson’s belief is this: we need no more US carriers or carrier groups.  The US military should be slashed.  In fact, we need to eliminate US carriers wholesale.

Gary Johnson is insane.

BZ

 

Department of the Internet

Net Neutrality GraphicThe US Department of the Internet is here, in all its chewy, buttery, governmental goodness.  And you can bet the DOI will be jam-gepacked with all the efficiency, thrift, cheer, good will and responsiveness as your local DMV.  Or, uh, any other federal government function.

Like Congress.

Net Neutrality BootFrom APNews.com:

Regulators OK ‘net neutrality’ rules for Internet providers

by Anne Flaherty

WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.

The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are “unjust or unreasonable,” represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The 3-2 vote was expected to trigger industry lawsuits that could take several years to resolve. Still, consumer advocates cheered the regulations as a victory for smaller Internet-based companies which feared they would have to pay “tolls” to move their content.

On its face, hey, “net neutrality,” what’s not to love about “neutrality,” right?

After all, it’s about “fairness.”  Air quotes.  “Fair” – “ness.”

But then there’s this:

Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment.

Initially, one can rest assured there will in fact be a new department created by the federal government (why not the Department of the Internet?), with its concomitant bloated bureaucracy, profligate spending, unfettered reach and brain-glazing indifference.

And as I wrote earlier, if the internet wasn’t broken, why the stultifying alacrity to allegedly “repair” it?

But here’s the real truth to the situation, and what these rules will have wrought:

Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately “bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight.”

It’s not true that consumers would see new taxes right away. The Internet Tax Freedom Act bans taxes on Internet access, although that bill expires in October. While Congress is expected to renew that legislation, it’s conceivable that states could eventually push Congress for the ability to tax Internet service now that it has been deemed a vital public utility.

And why wouldn’t states do this, when they are actively seeking new cash sources for in-state Free Cheese programs?

Bottom line?

“Read my lips. More Internet taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when,” Commissioner Pai said.

O joyous day.  A more regulated and less responsive internet, uninterested and unmotivated in technological innovation, for which we’ll all be paying more money.

Run by the same people who brought you ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website that was the epitome of productivity, coherence and budgetary frugality.

BZ