# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Amerikan judge states that cell phone users forfeit privacy

## Matthew5

http://rt.com/usa/no-cell-privacy-expectation-399/




> A federal judge recently ruled that if someone has their cell phone turned on, their location data does not deserve protection under the Fourth Amendment, meaning law enforcement can track individuals without a search warrant.
> 
> New York magistrate judge Gary Brown decided in favor of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents who were seeking his approval over a warrant on a doctor who they suspected was being paid for issuing thousands of prescriptions. The warrant would have compelled the physicians phone company to provide real-time tracking data from his cell. 
> 
> 
> Brown, certainly to the delight of police, issued a 30-page brief outlining his opinion that, by carrying a cell phone, someone is essentially waiving their Fourth Amendment right to due process. 
> 
> 
> Given the ubiquity and celebrity of geolocation technologies, an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the prospective of a cellular telephone where that individual has failed to protect his privacy by taking the simple expedient of powering it off, Brown wrote. 
> ...

----------


## Matthew5

> “As to control by the user, all of the known tracking technologies may be defeated by merely turning off the phone. Indeed – excluding apathy or inattention – the only reason that users leave cell phones turned on is so that the device can be located to receive calls. Conversely, individuals who do not want to be disturbed by unwanted telephone calls at a particular time or place simply turn their phones off, knowing that they cannot be located.”


Some cell phones don't fully power down when turned off and still carry location information.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> “As to control by the user, all of the known tracking technologies may be defeated by merely turning off the phone. Indeed – excluding apathy or inattention – the only reason that users leave cell phones turned on is so that the device can be located to receive calls. Conversely, individuals who do not want to be disturbed by unwanted telephone calls at a particular time or place simply turn their phones off, knowing that they cannot be located.”


Judge is $#@!.

Phones will listen and it's a safe bet, track you, *even if turned off.*



> Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.


http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

----------


## Anti Federalist

There's no $#@!ing Fourth Amendment anymore.

And nobody, outside of our merry little band of refuseniks, gives a $#@!, or even knows.

----------


## Anti Federalist

That said, short of destruction by fire, these I have found are good alternative.

"Faraday bags" for cel phones, RFID cards and passports and even laptops and tablets.

I have a couple of these and they kill a cel phone deader than Julius Caesar when placed inside.

No signal of any kind can get in or out.

http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Stron.../dp/B00AZ71E8A

----------


## DGambler

I love smartphones, yet despise them for this very reason.

----------


## muh_roads

GPS features can be turned off.  You can root/jailbreak your phone to make sure it's off.  I don't understand?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Read the comments after this  article.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10594

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.

Your phone, obviously, is encoded with it's own  unique i.d. Newer units can be 'tapped' or 'pinged', if you will, discreetly.  That is, the company can send a signal that causes your phone to respond (just  as if it were on and ready to receive a call), even when it has been turned  'off' by the user. *The reception of the incoming and transmission of the  outgoing signals are not (NOT) detectable by the user just by looking at or  listening to their phone. (The only way to disable this feature is by  disconnecting the battery.)*

Cell companys can pinpoint most units to  within a few hundred feet with no problem. GPS capable units are good down to  less than 10 feet in some cases. (plenty accurate enough to target a cruise  missile... Just ask the NSA how they were targeting Zarquawi...)

As for  those of you who have held your phones near speakers and picked up what you  may think are phone related 'disturbances'... get a cheap oscilliscope or  modify a radio shack scanner. (They even sell the book on how to do  it.)

GSM cell phones internationally use frequencies within four  different frequency bands :

* 850 MHz (824.2 - 848.8 MHz Tx; 869.2 -  893.8 MHz Rx)
* 900 MHz (880-2 - 914.8 MHz Tx; 925.2 - 959.8 MHz Rx)
*  1800 MHz (1710.2 - 1784.8 MHz Tx; 1805.2 - 1879.8 MHz Rx)
* 1900 MHz  (1850.2 - 1909.8 MHz Tx; 1930.2 - 1989.8 MHz Rx)

Although 850 and 900,  and 1800 and 1900 are very close together, a phone that works in one frequency  band unfortunately can not also work in the frequency band next to it unless  added as a specific extra frequency band. For comparison, when you have your  FM radio tuned to a radio station at 98.1 MHz, there's no way you'll hear what  is happening on another radio station at 98.3 MHz unless you retune your  radio. But, I digress...

Originally, the US used only 1900 MHz for its  GSM cell phone service. In the last few years there has been a growing amount  of GSM service on the 850 MHz band. This type of service will usually be seen  in rural areas, because the 850 MHz band has better range than the 1900 MHz  band. (Some people refer to the 850 MHz band as being the 800 MHz band. This  is incorrect. The actual frequencies in the band are closer to 850 MHz and the  standardized naming convention as promulgated by the GSM Association is to  refer to this band as '850 MHz'. But, again, I digress...)

With said  oscilliscope or modified scanner (which, by the way, is a violation of FCC  codes), you will prove to yourself that you are not crazy and that your phone  is indeed being used as a silent tracking device.

IF, HOWEVER, you are  a good law abiding citizen, oscilliscope challenged, and disinclined to go to  all that trouble, and you use a Motorola iDEN i58sr, i88s, i325, i355, i265,  i285, i605, i710, i730, i830, i850 or i860 cell phone carried by Nextel,  SouthernLINC (US) or Telus (Canada), for FREE you can visit  www.accutracking.com <http://www.accutracking.com/>  and enroll in their tracking service. (Don't trust your spouse? All you need  is a few minutes alone with their cell phone and access to the web.) The  service will initially send a couple of text messages to the phone being  tracked and, after that, there is no way the person using the tracked unit  could be any the wiser. (the data stream actually encodes altitude as  well!)


ALL (ALL) cell phones are tracked continuously while online.  (Duh! it's how we bill.) Most people don't know that those records can be  stored indefinately. The ever ominous 'They' can not only tell exactly where  you are now, but every where you've been with your phone in the past while  'hot' (talking).

Scary? Naw... it's fun. At least for me. I'm one of  the the 'They'...

Yours truly,

Just another 'nobody' from the  dungeons of one of Verizon's Corporate Research and Technologies  units.

PS... "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." U.S. Attorney  Michael Garcia

see here also:
http://forums.accutracking.com/viewtopic.php?t=494

====

Not sure what they mean by 'Newer units', but my Nokia GSM clearly doesn't transmit when off, according to my Volvo radio "scanner." Don't think cheap oscilloscopes can get anywhere near the RF band. And if I had a scanner, I don't think amateurs can tell their phone's digital stream from all the others nearby, both CDMA and GSM phones try to get all nearby phones to transmit at the same level, thereby improving the signal/noise ratio and extending battery life.

When it is on, sure, I can hear it handshake with different towers at nearly identical points throughout my commute. It supports E911 location via tower triangulation.

Can't say as much about Emily's CDMA handset, but I know it has a GPS chip inside. I think some undocumented *GPS#123 codes can be entered into it for more information, but sadly, not lat/longitude.

====

I was starting some research for a post/article on counter gait tracking...  haven't gotten too far, but if you read carefully between the lines, the admission is made that they can remotely get the phone to send this information and that it can "fingerprint" you as a certain individual with high accuracy.

Your cell phone is a Mobile Sensor Platform:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=GUPd2uMiXXg

at about 12:00

Microphone
Image
3-axis accelerometer
Touch
Light
Proximity
Geolocation

Mobile is not secure!  

At about 13:50:

Identify by 3-axis accelerometer
Gender (71%)
Height—Tall or short (80%)
Weight—Heavy or light (80%)
You by your gait (100%)

Actitracker—Android App

Audio – at about 16:00:
London put in all these camera's to actively prevent crime.  Do you know how many crimes were stopped by these camera's? … ONE!

umm, counter gait...  baby on hip or pack over shoulder, stone in shoe, intentionally using a cane.  Best results come from one worn on the hip, so tape to ankle or shoulder blade - someplace to throw it off. 

I would expect that the ability to turn on the camera/video and/or speaker and transmit also exists without the person being aware of it.

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> That said, short of destruction by fire, these I have found are good alternative.
> 
> "Faraday bags" for cel phones, RFID cards and passports and even laptops and tablets.
> 
> I have a couple of these and they kill a cel phone deader than Julius Caesar when placed inside.
> 
> No signal of any kind can get in or out.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Stron.../dp/B00AZ71E8A


You must spread some more rep before...

-t

----------


## madengr

Using this schmuck's logic, I assume he wouldn't have a problem with me decrypting his wireless conversations and posting them on the Internet.  He shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.

----------


## Matthew5

Remember y'all, if we're not doing anything wrong, why worry about it? 

Couple this with allowing law enforcement to install cameras on private property (or DOJ tapping phones, or drones, or...infinity) and it's impossible to leave your home and maintain a modicum of privacy. The "war on drugs" will never end, it's their all-you-eat buffet to destruction of privacy. All in the name of keeping little Johnny off drugs and in school. 

Will the empire ever cease to amaze?

----------


## puppetmaster

> Some cell phones don't fully power down when turned off and still carry location information.


....built in batteries are now the norm. Like is was mandated or something"

----------


## Victor Grey

What does technological ubiquity have to do with the security of the forth amendment?

Just because someone advertised their house's location and their phone number doesn't mean warrantless searches and wire taps. That isn't how it works.

Say hypothetically someone posted billboards of their house alongside highways, handed out flyers, advertised it's location on television, through radio, and the internet, and also flew a fleet of blimps advertising address of house and phone number among other methods.

That would be nearing toward ubiquity, would it not. The existence and location of said place would be easily obtainable common knowledge. 

Even in that ludicrous example, it has nothing to do with the warrant for the searching of said location.
I can't see how ubiquity alone is not meaningless and irrelevant. The same for celebrity. 

They have nothing in and of themselves to do with anything.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What does technological ubiquity have to do with the security of the forth amendment?
> 
> Just because someone advertised their house's location and their phone number doesn't mean warrantless searches and wire taps. That isn't how it works.


It is now, apparently.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> “Given the ubiquity and celebrity of geolocation technologies, an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy"


...




> "They hate us for our Freedoms"

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What does technological ubiquity have to do with the security of the fourth amendment?


Is going to get much worse moving forward. Unfortunately, the people have only themselves to blame.

----------


## TheTexan

If you're breathing that implies you don't have an expectation of privacy

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> If you're breathing that implies you don't have an expectation of privacy


They are starting to tax and regulate rainwater, how long before they start doing that for air?

-t

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They are starting to tax and regulate rainwater, how long before they start doing that for air?
> 
> -t


Kyoto...

----------


## DamianTV

> There's no $#@!ing Fourth Amendment anymore.
> 
> And nobody, outside of our merry little band of refuseniks, gives a $#@!, or even knows.


All that seems to be important to most people is getting rid of their privacy as quickly as possible because it stands in the way of them using social networking on their cell phones while driving to get coupons at their local overpriced grocery store that wont offer anyone without a "membership card" anything close to a reasonable price.

That was a run on sentence, wasnt it?

----------


## DamianTV

> What does technological ubiquity have to do with the security of the forth amendment?
> 
> Just because someone advertised their house's location and their phone number doesn't mean warrantless searches and wire taps. That isn't how it works.
> 
> Say hypothetically someone posted billboards of their house alongside highways, handed out flyers, advertised it's location on television, through radio, and the internet, and also flew a fleet of blimps advertising address of house and phone number among other methods.
> 
> That would be nearing toward ubiquity, would it not. The existence and location of said place would be easily obtainable common knowledge. 
> 
> Even in that ludicrous example, it has nothing to do with the warrant for the searching of said location.
> ...


Point #1

Unlawful Search and Seizure

If a cop comes to your house for some other reason than to find drugs, and happens to find drugs, that evidence can not be used against you.  A cop suspects you of murder, has a warrant, enters your home and finds a dead body with a knife in its back and your finger prints all over the knife and the victim, that would be valid evidence admissable under the Constitution.  The drug thing has been cited numerous times in numerous drug related cases.  But convictions are increasing because courts are refusing to acknowledge the previous cases less and less.

Point #2

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.

It says will be used AGAINST you, not for you.  Second Bit: Court of Law, not a Court of Justice.  You'll probably find out that all these laws that are supposedly there are not there to protect you, but to only protect the Govt.  You're told what the law is, then you get into court and find out that everything you were told about the law doesnt apply to you.  Why?  Notice the Flag in the Court Room.  It has Gold Fringes.  That defines that Court of Law operating under Admiralty Law, where you are their PROPERTY.

Point #3

"Right" and "Wrong" are Subjective Terms.  In someones eyes, you ARE doing something wrong.  Are you a Christian?  If you are, then you are WRONG in the eyes of many Muslims.  Im sorry, I dont know if you are Christian, so that is an assumption on my part.  So to correct my previous mistake, you are probably a Muslim.  Well, in the eyes of many Christians, you are WRONG for being Muslim.

Point #4

Thanks for telling me you werent at home, well thanks for using a cell phone so I could know when you arent at home.  I'd hate to break into your house and find you there pointing a gun at me.

Point #5

Oh really?  You go to the bar every day after work?  Well sir, this is an indication that you are leading an unhealthy lifestyle, which is in complete contradiction to your Health Insurance Mandate.  You are our property after all.

Point #6

Whats the big deal about this Privacy $#@! anyway?  Google knows I like Ron Paul.  Thats why they try so damn hard to constantly tell me how much of a douchebag Sarah Palin thinks he is.  Of course, I like using my friends computer better.  He blocks cookies and google doesnt make ANY mention of Ron Paul what so ever on his computer.  Not sure why that is.

NO PRIVACY =  CENSORSHIP

Point #7

The average person commits THREE FELONIES PER DAY.  It would be a shame if the Govt started using the evidence that the police collect from peoples cell phones without a warrant to convict all these criminals of all these crimes.

Should I continue?

----------


## otherone

Be prepared for the "Lost Child Act" of 2016, when all Americans are mandated to carry a cell phone at all times...for our own protection, in case we get lost in the woods or something (think about the children).  The Feds will be able to locate anyone at a moment's notice.  They'll even give you one free if you can't afford it (they do that now).  Someone will bitch about it, it will go to the Supremes, who will rule, "sure, whatever".   They'll justify it with by the Commerce Clause and sight The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as precedent.

----------


## Boss

...

----------

