The government need not obtain probable cause search warrants for cell
phone user data, because customers have "no reasonable expectation of
privacy," a Justice Department lawyer argued Tuesday before the 5th
Circuit.
Nathan Judish, senior counsel for the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, argued that because cell phone companies store usage information at their own discretion, they act as witnesses in a criminal investigation where any relevant information is admissible without a warrant.
Tuesday's hearing stems from a government bid for judicial orders authorizing the disclosure of 60 days of location data from two cell phone companies as part of a routine investigation.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith rejected the government's requests in 2010, saying it needed to apply for a search warrant supported by probable cause, and a federal judge agreed.
The Justice Department is now appealing that decision to the federal appeals court in New Orleans.
Judge Thomas Reavley, one of three judges on the 5th Circuit panel, suggested that maybe Smith required the search warrant because cell phone technology is forever advancing, and future cell phone records might reveal much more than they do today.
Judish said the federal appeals court need not address possible future technology in its ruling, only the technology that's currently available.
But Susan Freiwald, a professor at University of San Francisco's School of Law, said cell phone technology is already capable of "massive surveillance," and argued that the government's request for cell phone records for a 60-day period is "too long and too intrusive."
Freiwald refuted the government's claim that just because cell phone users know that their phones are "tracking devices," they should reasonably expect to be tracked by them.
Read more: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/03/50935.htm
Nathan Judish, senior counsel for the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, argued that because cell phone companies store usage information at their own discretion, they act as witnesses in a criminal investigation where any relevant information is admissible without a warrant.
Tuesday's hearing stems from a government bid for judicial orders authorizing the disclosure of 60 days of location data from two cell phone companies as part of a routine investigation.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith rejected the government's requests in 2010, saying it needed to apply for a search warrant supported by probable cause, and a federal judge agreed.
The Justice Department is now appealing that decision to the federal appeals court in New Orleans.
Judge Thomas Reavley, one of three judges on the 5th Circuit panel, suggested that maybe Smith required the search warrant because cell phone technology is forever advancing, and future cell phone records might reveal much more than they do today.
Judish said the federal appeals court need not address possible future technology in its ruling, only the technology that's currently available.
But Susan Freiwald, a professor at University of San Francisco's School of Law, said cell phone technology is already capable of "massive surveillance," and argued that the government's request for cell phone records for a 60-day period is "too long and too intrusive."
Freiwald refuted the government's claim that just because cell phone users know that their phones are "tracking devices," they should reasonably expect to be tracked by them.
Read more: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/03/50935.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment