Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing"
Watch full episode of the Debate here: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/11/18/386455/debate-us-spiraling-spying/ The United States Department of Justice is spying on mobile phones through...
By: iStateOfMind3
Follow this link:
Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing" - Video
If the Founders and Framers knew about U.S. marshals' reported airborne collection of cellphone data from thousands of innocent Americans while pursuing criminals, they surely would shout, Get a warrant!
First reported by The Wall Street Journal, this program began outrageously violating Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure around 2007. Cessna aircraft, covering most of the U.S. population from five unidentified metro-area airports, carry devices that mimic cell towers, fooling cellphones into reporting their general locations and unique registration information.
These devices supposedly distinguish between innocents' cellphones and those of fugitives, drug dealers and others under criminal investigation. But they can gather data from tens of thousands of phones, encrypted or not, in a single flight. And while court orders supposedly are obtained for these flights, those orders are sealed.
Given how wide a net is cast, it's hard to see how those court orders could be as specific about what's to be searched, for what purpose as search warrants must be under the Fourth Amendment.
The ACLU's chief technologist says judges approving this dragnet surveillance program likely don't realize its scale. Such widespread snooping on innocents is the result of overreaching law enforcers and compliant judges disregarding constitutional wisdom.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
Read the original here:
Snoopers flights: Air raid!
4th Amendment at the Border?
The fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure do not necessarily apply at the "border".
By: Adrian Fontes
See the article here:
4th Amendment at the Border? - Video
Fourth Amendment Rights being Violated
"The 4th Amendment States The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, sh...
By: Jodi Stevens
See the rest here:
Fourth Amendment Rights being Violated - Video
TIME Tech privacy Is the Governments Aerial Smartphone Surveillance Program Legal? Small airplane in flight. John Greim 2009 John Greim The program could violate the Fourth Amendment, some privacy groups say
Civil rights groups are raising serious constitutional questions about the Justice Departments use of dragnet technology onboard aircraft to collect data from suspects cell phones, as reported by the Wall Street Journal Thursday.
The program, run by the U.S. Marshals Service, uses small aircraft equipped with high-tech devices that mimic cell towers, tricking suspects cell phones into connecting with them instead of legitimate towers. The devices, called dirtboxes, can then grab certain data from the tricked phones, most notably their location. The aircraft involved operate from five U.S. metropolitan areas and have together a flying range covering most of the countrys population, the Journal reported.
The program is designed to target suspects in law enforcement investigations. However, the nature of the technology means that devices in a certain range of the aircraft are fooled into connecting to the dirtbox, potentially giving law enforcement access to identifying data and general location information about hundreds or thousands of innocent Americans with each flight. Because that access comes without probable cause, civil liberties groups say, the program could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
These devices are sweeping up information about the cell phones of thousands of completely innocent bystanders. That looks a whole lot like the kind of dragnet search that the framers of the Fourth Amendment abhorred, said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Wheeler.
The Justice Department said it could not confirm or deny the existence of the program. But a department official said that all federal investigations are consistent with federal law and are subject to court approval. That official also said the Marshals Service does not maintain any databases of cell phone information meaning the program could possibly only be used to track the whereabouts of suspects on a case-by-case basis and that its vastly different in nature from the kinds of sweeping government surveillance programs first revealed by Edward Snowden.
Still, is the Justice Departments airborne dragnet program legal? The answer is maybe.
Federal authorities have employed similar tools in the past. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is known to use a surveillance tool called a stingray, a portable transceiver that tricks cell phones within a certain area into relaying their locations, not unlike the equipment onboard the Marshals aircraft. A government vehicle with a stingray can net hundreds of nearby cell phones approximate locations just by driving through a typical neighborhood. The government has said it doesnt need a probable cause warrant to use stingrays because investigators dont collect the content of phone calls, just the locations of those phones. Government officials, meanwhile, have said they get court approval to use the devices.
Much of the governments warrantless use of stingray-style technology hinges on a 1979 Supreme Court decision titled Smith v. Maryland. Smith involved law enforcements use of a device called a pen register that, when attached to a suspects phone line, recorded the numbers of outgoing calls, but not the calls themselves. The Smith decision upheld the warrantless use of such devices because the suspects phone company would record the same data picked up by the pen register, and therefore the suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy when it came to that information. Currently, the law requires a court to approve the use of a pen register, but investigators only have to show that the devices use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, a much weaker standard than a probable cause warrant requires.
Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney at the pro-privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the Department of Justice could use the Smith precedent as legal justification for the airborne dirtbox program. However, Fakhoury also highlighted a key problem with that argument: Location. Pen registers arent intended to pick up location data beyond an area code, whereas the airborne dirtboxes can track a person down to a single building. Many courts, he said, have expressed that location data deserves greater constitutional protection than is afforded to other kinds of information.
Read the original post:
Is the Governments Aerial Smartphone Surveillance Program Legal?