suntimes
MEDIOCRE 
Weather Updates

Cellphone tracking threatens our privacy

Mel Evans~AP File Photo

Mel Evans~AP File Photo

storyidforme: 30898522
tmspicid: 11240003
fileheaderid: 5133881

Updated: July 2, 2012 9:25AM



In January, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that tracking a suspect’s movements by attaching a GPS transmitter to his car counts as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. But because the majority opinion emphasized the physical intrusion needed to surreptitiously install the transmitter, it did not resolve the constitutional implications of surveillance using cellphones, the tracking devices that Americans voluntarily carry in their pockets and purses.

In the absence of clear guidance, a recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union suggests, law enforcement agencies are making up the rules as they go along, often obtaining location data from cellphone carriers without a warrant even for routine investigations. Last week, a House subcommittee considered a bill that would address this threat to privacy by requiring a warrant for geolocational surveillance, regardless of the method used.

While the Supreme Court’s decision involved surveillance that required a trespass on the target’s property, five justices seemed to agree the real issue was the sensitive information collected by continually tracking his car for 28 days. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit observed in the same case, “A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.”

Cellphone tracking can be even more revealing, since people take their phones everywhere, including private indoor locations. Furthermore, carriers retain location records for months or years, creating a trove of personal data that law enforcement agencies can peruse at will.

“There have always been facets of American life that have been uniquely safeguarded from the intrusive interference and observation of government,” the ACLU’s Catherine Crump told the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security last week. “Geolocation surveillance threatens to make even those aspects of life an open book to government.”

Crump was testifying in support of the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable-cause warrant before intercepting or demanding geolocation data, except in emergencies and cases involving foreign intelligence.  

As University of Pennsylvania computer scientist Matt Blaze noted in his testimony on the GPS Act, the sectors served by each cellphone base station are becoming smaller and smaller as carriers strive to keep up with increasing demands on their networks.

That means it may be possible to identify a target’s specific location without GPS or triangulation, simply by knowing the closest base station, which is information cellphones automatically collect.

 The ACLU reported last month that local policies “are in a state of chaos, with different towns following different rules — or in some cases, having no rules at all.”

Examining documents from more than 200 law enforcement agencies, the ACLU found that only a few had a general policy of seeking a warrant for cellphone tracking. Some do warrantless tracking only in life-threatening emergencies, but many do it routinely.

Our privacy deserves more respect. The GPS Act would provide it.



© 2014 Sun-Times Media, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission. For more information about reprints and permissions, visit www.suntimesreprints.com. To order a reprint of this article, click here.