quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Not true.

With that phone turned off, not much has changed from turned on. If you have a smart phone, not only is it still trackable, but it can still be used remotely, including audio and camera, and can still be controlled remotely by third parties.

The ONLY way to stop that is to remove the battery. Most smart phones today don't have that as an option.

Just because you can't use your "find my iphone" feature, doesn't mean it's not trackable or useable by others...who won't be using the "find my iphone" feature, or software.

Do you have a source or cite that confirms this?

I too would love to see some sources on this. It’s well(ish) known that there is spyware that can infect a phone and allow someone to activate features such as the camera and mic while the phone is “off”, though really these programs tend to work because they don’t actually allow the phone to turn off.

Correct me if I’m wrong but what you seem to be saying though is that every phone can be tracked and features remotely turned on even if they don’t have spyware installed, or maybe you are saying that every phone has some sort of spyware installed, which would mean that is being done by the manufacturer.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH

Why should it be necessarily difficult? And, no, I've not come across the idea that it's better for a thousand criminals go free. Also, I know this one court decided the 4th amendment rights of uninvolved innocent parties were violated which then threw out the conviction of the criminal. But the news is that it was this one court versus other courts who previously allowed such polling. I honestly don't quite buy that the government getting a list of people who were in an area at a given time which may include me is a violation of my 4th amendment. We have cameras in a lot of locations. I've even seen different videos from different cameras spliced together to track a person from the scene of a crime to another point. They can look at the video and see who were in the area if the crime happen to be committed off camera and investigate the people who were there. Even before cameras, police would ask people of interest, "Where were you on such a date and a given time?"

I'm open and willing to be persuaded.

Let's start with the idea behind getting a warrant. Items to be searched, searched for, or seized are to be very specifically defined and as limited in scope as possible. Casting a wide net during a fishing expedition to find everyone in a given area at a given time doesn't exactly meet that requirement, does it?

Let's continue with the potential for abuse of this. Government power is an actual, documented slippery slope such that if they're given the ability to use this for any scenario, they'll eventually request and grant themselves permission to use this in additional scenarios. If you need further proof, look how things unraveled once they defined the interstate commerce clause. Government does not need to be able to possess or use data about large portions of the population.

This information may seem very inconsequential to you, but an awful lot about a person can be derived from such data.

It's a pandora's box best left unopened. It's bad enough the cellular device and other providers are gathering, storing, and using the information both internally and externally.

I get the interstate commerce clause. But in that case, the fault lies with the judicial interpretation of the law and how it's been abused to justify controlling a lot of things. I like the effort by Texas to make null and void the NFA requirements for silencers manufactured and used strictly inside Texas. The 4th amendment is regarding the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I guess the question is whether your presence at a particular location at a particular time is a part of your person. Again, I don't think you have any argument against the use of videos by the police from various sources in an effort to identify criminals, right? Where you happen to be is not a protected right by itself. I'm bouncing this against the idea that when you're in a public place, you can be recorded by anyone. People are even on YouTube pushing this idea that they have the constitutional right to video anyone or anything accessible from a public location.

But, at least, you've helped clarified for me what the issue is: whether where you happen to be at a given time is inherently part of your person protected by the 4th amendment and for that, I thank you. As of now, since other people who may be present at the time have your location, then that information is not a part of your person. But I'll keep this position as a placeholder for now. I might change my mind in the future.

Again, thank you for helping me think the issue through.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Do you have a source or cite that confirms this?

It's super secret squirrel stuff. He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Do you have a source or cite that confirms this?

It's super secret squirrel stuff. He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.

I’d ask you how you knew, but I guess you couldn’t tell me.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH

I get the interstate commerce clause. But in that case, the fault lies with the judicial interpretation of the law and how it's been abused to justify controlling a lot of things. I like the effort by Texas to make null and void the NFA requirements for silencers manufactured and used strictly inside Texas. The 4th amendment is regarding the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I guess the question is whether your presence at a particular location at a particular time is a part of your person. Again, I don't think you have any argument against the use of videos by the police from various sources in an effort to identify criminals, right? Where you happen to be is not a protected right by itself. I'm bouncing this against the idea that when you're in a public place, you can be recorded by anyone. People are even on YouTube pushing this idea that they have the constitutional right to video anyone or anything accessible from a public location.

But, at least, you've helped clarified for me what the issue is: whether where you happen to be at a given time is inherently part of your person protected by the 4th amendment and for that, I thank you. As of now, since other people who may be present at the time have your location, then that information is not a part of your person. But I'll keep this position as a placeholder for now. I might change my mind in the future.

Again, thank you for helping me think the issue through.

You're still thinking about this the wrong way.

Your presence or absence in a given place isn't what I'm suggesting is protected from unreasonable searches, but rather data you've agreed to allow a third party to collect for various business reasons within a private business transaction is what's being protected and what should be protected.

You can be recorded by anyone in public or as noted, an officer can even follow you around all day and even gather security videos featuring you (assuming this completely occurs in public locations) without violating your rights. Both of those things are substantially different from the government accessing your private records in order to track you.


Accessing location data should be considered more akin to accessing the contents of your device, a voice conversation, and similar items. None of these things are publicly accessible, and with both the phone calls and your data, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy insomuch as you've allowed the phone company access to certain information about your device and its location for specific business purposes in exchange for using the service. The information they collect is not publicly accessible, therefore should require a more stringent standard to access, similar to the content of your phone calls.

It's not like the officer standing on the sidewalk in front of an open window watching you cut up and snort a line of coke which wouldn't require a warrant to gather that visual evidence. It's like that officer entering your property, reaching in the window and pulling the curtain aside to watch what you're doing.

Accessing the phone's location data is substantially different from simply asking someone whether they've seen a specific person or accessing a security video for an establishment. You've got no expectation of privacy in the store, but you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your phone records including location data which is not publicly accessible, and therefore should require a very specific warrant to access, and should not be given out in a random fishing expedition.

Edited a few items for clarity, fixed some auto correct errors, and minor adjustments.

Also edited to add: this is similar to the difference between the police collecting video surveillance gathered in common areas of the hotel you're staying in versus from inside your room. You have no expectation of privacy in the common areas including the lobby or hallways. If the police wish to conduct surveillance inside your hotel room, they'll need a specific warrant, assuming you're not doing anything unlawful which can be plainly detected from outside your door.

Now, if a given person has knowingly enabled an activity tracking application for the specific purpose of publicly sharing location data, then we're back to having no expectation of privacy for the data the individual has chosen to make publicly accessible. That is also substantially a different case than data about your location which has been privately collected as part of providing you phone and data services.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the_sandman_454,

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Not true.

With that phone turned off, not much has changed from turned on. If you have a smart phone, not only is it still trackable, but it can still be used remotely, including audio and camera, and can still be controlled remotely by third parties.

The ONLY way to stop that is to remove the battery. Most smart phones today don't have that as an option.

Just because you can't use your "find my iphone" feature, doesn't mean it's not trackable or useable by others...who won't be using the "find my iphone" feature, or software.

Do you have a source or cite that confirms this?

I too would love to see some sources on this. It’s well(ish) known that there is spyware that can infect a phone and allow someone to activate features such as the camera and mic while the phone is “off”, though really these programs tend to work because they don’t actually allow the phone to turn off.

Correct me if I’m wrong but what you seem to be saying though is that every phone can be tracked and features remotely turned on even if they don’t have spyware installed, or maybe you are saying that every phone has some sort of spyware installed, which would mean that is being done by the manufacturer.

No response yet, so I call bullshit.

I’ve never done the secret squirrel stuff, but I’ve had to try to track plenty of suicidal people. Once their phones were off the cell phone company could not get a location.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH

I get the interstate commerce clause. But in that case, the fault lies with the judicial interpretation of the law and how it's been abused to justify controlling a lot of things. I like the effort by Texas to make null and void the NFA requirements for silencers manufactured and used strictly inside Texas. The 4th amendment is regarding the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. I guess the question is whether your presence at a particular location at a particular time is a part of your person. Again, I don't think you have any argument against the use of videos by the police from various sources in an effort to identify criminals, right? Where you happen to be is not a protected right by itself. I'm bouncing this against the idea that when you're in a public place, you can be recorded by anyone. People are even on YouTube pushing this idea that they have the constitutional right to video anyone or anything accessible from a public location.

But, at least, you've helped clarified for me what the issue is: whether where you happen to be at a given time is inherently part of your person protected by the 4th amendment and for that, I thank you. As of now, since other people who may be present at the time have your location, then that information is not a part of your person. But I'll keep this position as a placeholder for now. I might change my mind in the future.

Again, thank you for helping me think the issue through.

You're still thinking about this the wrong way.

Your presence or absence in a given place isn't what I'm suggesting is protected from unreasonable searches, but rather data you've agreed to allow a third party to collect for various business reasons within a private business transaction is what's being protected and what should be protected.

You can be recorded by anyone in public or as noted, an officer can even follow you around all day and even gather security videos featuring you (assuming this completely occurs in public locations) without violating your rights. Both of those things are substantially different from the government accessing your private records in order to track you.


Accessing location data should be considered more akin to accessing the contents of your device, a voice conversation, and similar items. None of these things are publicly accessible,

I disagree that I'm "still thinking about this the wrong way;" I am merely thinking about this in a different way than you. I disagree that the electronic record of what cell phones were pinging a cell tower at a particular time is not akin to accessing the contents of your device, a voice conversation, and similar items. Those records of which devices were pinging a cell tower belong to the cell tower company and their use is subject to the company's policies with respect to cooperation with law enforcement. If the company's policy is that they can sell that information to third parties, then law enforcement can simply buy it. People opting for targeted ads as they go to various locations open themselves up to this.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH

I disagree that I'm "still thinking about this the wrong way;" I am merely thinking about this in a different way than you. I disagree that the electronic record of what cell phones were pinging a cell tower at a particular time is not akin to accessing the contents of your device, a voice conversation, and similar items. Those records of which devices were pinging a cell tower belong to the cell tower company and their use is subject to the company's policies with respect to cooperation with law enforcement. If the company's policy is that they can sell that information to third parties, then law enforcement can simply buy it. People opting for targeted ads as they go to various locations open themselves up to this.

Cooperation with law enforcement doesn't and probably shouldn't mean "just give them a massive data dump of all of the names of people in a given area." They can cooperate just fine upon receiving a specific warrant for specific data.

Aggregate data without identifying information is fine to share freely, such as how many people/ devices were in the area.

As you note, people who have opted into a service for targeted ads may have less of a privacy related dispute, as they've opted in to privacy reducing features and approved sale of private data.

People who have not given consent for that, however, have a bit more of a valid complaint with regard to such information being dispersed without proper cause having been shown.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH

I disagree that I'm "still thinking about this the wrong way;" I am merely thinking about this in a different way than you. I disagree that the electronic record of what cell phones were pinging a cell tower at a particular time is not akin to accessing the contents of your device, a voice conversation, and similar items. Those records of which devices were pinging a cell tower belong to the cell tower company and their use is subject to the company's policies with respect to cooperation with law enforcement. If the company's policy is that they can sell that information to third parties, then law enforcement can simply buy it. People opting for targeted ads as they go to various locations open themselves up to this.

Cooperation with law enforcement doesn't and probably shouldn't mean "just give them a massive data dump of all of the names of people in a given area." They can cooperate just fine upon receiving a specific warrant for specific data.

Aggregate data without identifying information is fine to share freely, such as how many people/ devices were in the area.

As you note, people who have opted into a service for targeted ads may have less of a privacy related dispute, as they've opted in to privacy reducing features and approved sale of private data.

People who have not given consent for that, however, have a bit more of a valid complaint with regard to such information being dispersed without proper cause having been shown.

When was the last time time you pored over every clause of every EULA, agreement, contract, and related updates you entered into as a consumer?

I see you quoted my response which includes the following:

quote:

But, at least, you've helped clarified for me what the issue is: whether where you happen to be at a given time is inherently part of your person protected by the 4th amendment and for that, I thank you.

Did you interpret what I said as an indication that I'm ready to make up my mind on this issue with just a little more coaxing and that I'm ready to come around and see things your way?

Permutating your possible answers to my two questions above allows me to rest my case. Again, thank you for helping to clarify the issue in my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

No response yet, so I call bullshit.

He’s responded in this thread since you asked and he was online this morning in another one, so yeah, it appears he cannot back his statements up.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I’ve never done the secret squirrel stuff, but I’ve had to try to track plenty of suicidal people. Once their phones were off the cell phone company could not get a location.

This. And runaways. On the rare occasions that the phone was on and the carrier was able to give us a location it was in a radius measured in hundreds or thousands of meters. They'd triangulate from 2 or more towers and tell us our person was somewhere in a multi-square-mile blob on the map.