Experts Say Wiretap Law Needs Digital Era Update 54
GovTechGuy writes "Experts at a Congressional hearing Thursday said the government needs to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to reflect changes in technology, notably location-based services. On one hand, legal experts argue tracking a mobile user's location should require a higher burden of proof than simply intercepting their communications. On the other hand, first responders may need location data in order to save lives and respond to 911 calls. Either way, expect legislation from the committee later this year."
This law is only as useful as it is enforced (Score:5, Informative)
And the previous track record of stopping illegal wire tapping is abysmal...
Either way (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, expect legislation from the committee later this year.
A better prediction would be: "either way, expect everyone you don't want to, to have access to your location data without a court order or notification later this year".
Why implant tracking devices into the population, if you can get them to willingly carry the tracking devices with them.
Now, just ensure that the cell phones can be remotely turned on to listen to people's conversations, and you can start building the kind of government from which there is no escape at all.
I think that within the next 10 ye
Either way, expect legislation (Score:1, Informative)
The most prescient statement in the write-up.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Also add the corollary: If compromises are to be achieved, expect the worst of all worlds.
Just require immediate disclosure (Score:4, Interesting)
Require any tracking of location to be disclosed to the target immediately. This is easy for the firetruck or EMS to handle because they've got the coordinates and they're responding immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just require immediate disclosure (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is easy for the firetruck or EMS to handle because they've got the coordinates and they're responding immediately.
Not necessarily. You could be reporting a fire in your downstairs neighbor's apartment. Imminent danger to human safety trumps privacy rights if they are in conflict. In some cases, imminent danger to property can also trump privacy. You want the fire department to put an axe through your neighbor's door now, not after calling his hotel room in the Bahamas. Society is pretty okay with emerg
Re: (Score:2)
That is not an issue at all or at least not the issue. The grand partent wanted the operator of the device to be informed imediately when when their location is being reported or accessed. That could be something as simple as the words "Location tracked" printed on the cell phones display. Its your location that is being remported and you who needs to be informed of this fact. If you want the fire department to break down your neighbors door because you see smoke, they don't need to inform your neighbor
Re: (Score:2)
Except, if you are reporting the fire, it will be your location data that's tracked, they don't need to figure out who owns the property, what their phone number is or where they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting solution to the wrong problem.
What they need is easy access to the data, in event of an emergency, and a way to make sure that bypass of the long procedure is ONLY used in emergency. This is, sadly, NOT Uncle Sam's strong suit.
Take Miranda rights. At first, they read them when you got questioned. Then it was decided that, in cases of emergency, that was not needed, and they could delay reading miranda, to deal with an emergency situation. Ok Fair enough.
The problem is, this just opened the door
Re: (Score:2)
What they need is easy access to the data, in event of an emergency, and a way to make sure that bypass of the long procedure is ONLY used in emergency. This is, sadly, NOT Uncle Sam's strong suit.
You propose a legal solution, when a technical one would be better. In fact, a technical one already exists. When I dial 911, my phone automatically transmits my location along with the call. When I call anyone else, it doesn't transmit the location. All you really need to do is ensure that location data is only sent to the person you are calling, unless you go through the long legal process. And that's something that, AFAIK, is already done in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa! the rule is simple. If it is an emergency, and the service in question is acting in a way that would help the person being tracked they can get immediate access to the data. This is the case be it somebody reporting their house is on fire, or that they need an ambulance, or that they are under attack.
However, even in an emergency it would require a warrant to track somebody who is not direct helped by the tracking, such as tracking a suspect under investigation.
If there is doubt, you err on the side o
What about my street address? (Score:1)
My "location" is in the public record - it's called "my street address". Since I can't hide my street address, all the other "private" location data are a minor detail.
Expiration (Score:3, Insightful)
How hard is that? They know that five years from now they'll never let something like this expire without an updated version to replace it.
Re:Expiration (Score:4, Insightful)
ALL laws should have an expiration date. If something still makes sense in 5/10/15/20 years, it will get repassed.
My town still has crap like "You can't walk through any city property with a watermellon and fishing pole" from the 1800s.
Re: (Score:2)
My town still has crap like "You can't walk through any city property with a watermelon and fishing pole" from the 1800s.
Now you've stirred my historical perspective curiosity. There must have been some reason for that law being passed.
For the fishing pole, maybe they had a big problem with illegal fishing/poaching on city property? So just ban all fishing poles. Maybe the "no concealed weapons in bars" laws in Texas today will look silly in 200 years? Just like this Electronic Communications Privacy Act law might.
For the watermelon, maybe the city had a monopoly watermelon concession on city property. They wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
More likely this is small town politics aimed at one specific person they didn't like rather than a behavior or activity. Then again, maybe someone was using watermelon chunks as bait, and the fish were choking on the seeds. So they made it illegal to look like you were going to attempt that.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
My guess would be that if that law was real it was enacted as a subtle way of signalling out poor blacks. Fishing as a means of providing food is well known amongst us poor and everyone knowns how much we like our watermelon.
Re: (Score:2)
Should be able to deny E911 location (Score:3, Insightful)
On all cell phones it says allow others to use location service or emergency only. No way to ever turn off the locator. Then they would be required to get a warrant to go get the cell phone tower data. So at that point they would definitely need some burden of proof to get that information, most of the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an idea: Emergency services can look at the data any time they want, BUT if they look at it without a warrant, it becomes forever fruit of the poison tree. Completely inadmissible in court. AND, anything they get from what they find from that line of evidence is also poisoned.
Ambulances and fire rescue and such wouldn't care, and thus have no hinderance. Police, on the other hand, would have to be very careful and get a warrant, lest they completely screw their investigation.
how did we manage (Score:2)
How did we manage to indicate to emergency services where we were before cellphones with GPS? Did we all die?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or you needed to tell the operator where you located.
Bingo. Same way it is now with cell phones. I'll swag it, but I doubt that more than 1 in 100,000 E911 calls are the kind where the caller is unable to tell the operator their location. It makes for high-tension commercial-break cliff-hangers to have the protagonist dial 911 and then pass out, but in real life that seems highly unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least they can dispatch someone to a rough location while asking where they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it was closer to 1-100
Remember police or EMS pulling up to the house two doors down can delay response time by five minutes or more. There are also numerous cases of ems responders pulling up to a house finding out nothing was wrong and leaving only to find out they were on the wrong side of the road. Or having the wrong apartment number out of hundred of possibles.
The person doesn't have to pass out either having a hard time breathings also causes trouble.
E911 locationion data was passed as laws a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was closer to 1-100
If your going to dispute my swag, you really should cite your sources. You know, that "history" you smugly refer to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how did we manage (Score:4, Insightful)
"Needs digital era update" equals "We need law that enables us to track every citizen when ever we feel like it". It's a synonum to "would someone please think about the children" card. And believe me, there's plenty of people who welcome these laws with open arms because "I got nothing to hide. You obviously do, which tells that we need this law". I've seen this many times in our local Finnish news sites.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a synonum to "would someone please think about the children" card.
It's funny you should say that, but I'm interested in this because of my children. My kids are old enough to be home alone sometimes, but not old enough to have their own phones yet. The only reason I still have a landline, really, is for them to use when they're home alone. I've considered porting the number over to a prepaid cellphone which I could just leave plugged in for them to use, which would have the advantage that our "home" phone could come with us when traveling. So I am interested in having an
Re: (Score:1)
Smoke signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Some time ago, I called 911 to report the presence of an obstruction on a freeway. Before I spoke to anyone, the phone call was redirected to the highway patrol and I received an automated message telling me that they knew about the obstruction. To do this, they would have to have a farily accurate location for me and this was without GPS.
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of years ago I called 911 to report a burglary in progress across the street. I got PUT ON HOLD for a few minutes before I could talk to anyone at all. "All of our lines are busy, please hold..." and so on.
I used to think that "You know you're having a bad day when... you call 911 and they put you on hold." was a joke. Apparently it's not.
I wrote a letter of complaint about this matter to the City Council, but nothing was ever done other than sending me back an acknowledgment of
Wiretapping shouldn't cover videos of cops. (Score:2, Insightful)
Stories of this are all over the web, some abusive cop is walking all over somebody's rights, someone else starts recording them on their cell phone, and the Good Samaritan is arrested for filming the cop under wiretapping laws. Even though it's right out in public and there may be five or ten security cameras recording the same area 24/7.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100603/0859019675.shtml
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother with warrants ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cop1: Let's get a warrant.
Cop2: Don't bother, just say they might be a threat to national security.
Cop1: Should we bother with the rubber stamp ?
Cop2: No one else does.
Cop1: Thanks, FISA !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act [wikipedia.org]
Translation (Score:1, Informative)
The police state needs an upgrade.
--
Toro
E911 Phase 2 Already Requires Location (Score:2)
Enhanced 911 Phase 2 already requires wireless phone providers to deliver sub-300 meter accurate positions of 911 callers to the responding Public Safety Answering Point. This takes full effect in September 2012. 95% of subscriber phones were required to provide such location data by 2005.
So that entire section of the TFS is a red herring.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiretap updates (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Citizen,
We don't care about the courts or the Constitution with respect to your rights and privacy, and we will carry on doing what we like in secret.
Yours Sincerely,
Past / Present / Future President of the USA
I don't believe you Mr President (Score:1)
Do you know of any country, in any continent, in any period of written history (maybe even before that) that this was not happening, namely the leaders/chiefs/kings/presidents not being able to "carry on doing what they liked", either in the open or in secret?
Goose meet Gander (Score:2)
Okay, the details may need some work, but I think the intent is clear. I'm open to any suggestions on improvement.