Court Rebuffs Obama on Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking

[Newsjock]

Source: Wired

A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected the Obama administration’s contention that the government is never required to get a court warrant to obtain cell-site information that mobile-phone carriers retain on their customers.

... The case that concluded Wednesday concerns historical cell-site location information, which carriers usually retain for about 18 months. The data identifies the cell tower the customer was connected to at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call — and is often used in criminal prosecutions and investigations.

... The Stored Communications Act, the appeals court ruled in September, granted judges the discretion to require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment for the government to obtain the cell-site information. It was the first appellate court to reach that conclusion, despite a handful of lower-court decisions freeing the government from that requirement.

The Obama administration urged the appellate court to reconsider its position, an offer the court declined Wednesday without commenting on the merits.

The administration has also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse its August ruling requiring court warrants to affix GPS devices to vehicles to track their every move. The administration said Americans should expect no privacy “in the totality of his or her movements in public places.”

Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/cell-site-warrants/

[Hardrada]

1. I feel now what I did when the courts would stop Nixon doing stuff.

And Nixon was a liberal (by comparison with Barack).

[avaistheone1]

4. I have said before on many issues Obama is to the right of Nixon.

It's hard to believe Obama is a Constitutional scholar when he has so little respect for the Constitution. imo

[truedelphi]

10. Ah, but perhaps the Powers that Be required someone like Obama

with a knowledge of the Constitution so that they could figure out ways around it.

just a thought.

[katandmoon]

2. Does anyone really think this ruling will stop them?

[Sherman A1]

14. Not at all.

They will just find a way to bounce the signals through another country and then data mine them that way.

[harun]

18. No way. They'll just cloak it behind National Security.

[Downwinder]

3. Does this mean I need a Court Order to put a tracker on a Government vehicle?

[villager]

5. once again, we have to root for the few remaining decent judges to rein in a President

...who unleashes out-of-control intrusion into the lives of Americans...

[villager]

6. the software wishes to emphasize my point by repeating it twice!

;-)

[Celtic Raven]

24. Bears repeating

:hi:

[obxhead]

7. A small victory against some of the nonsense of this admin. nt

[saigon68]

9. Eric Holder house boy to the ruling class

He takes his orders seriously as he diminishes freedom for all

[nyy1998]

20. No, he has to defend every law, even the ones he may not like.

This has nothing to do with the "ruling class" except they create these lousy laws to begin with.

[Bragi]

23. Can you explain that?

Serious question:

If an AG feels they cannot win on appeal, then they don't have to appeal a decision, right?

It's a discretionary choice they make whether or not to appeal a ruling. Or not?

[obxhead]

25. No, Holder only has to keep the boss happy by doing the bosses

bidding. His boss is Barack Obama.

Yes, it really is that simple.

[nyy1998]

28. no, no it isn't

Obama doesn't really have much of a choice in this matter either

[Solly Mack]

8. k/r

[Poll_Blind]

11. Fuck Bush!

PB

[Monk06]

12. Barack Obama is not in charge of this administration. He's just as much a hand puppet as GWB.

[truth2power]

13. That's letting him off the hook, don't you think? n/t

[sirthomas66]

19. Yep. Has been true since the very beginning. And the strange

thing is that should he have ruled with honor, constantly performing FOR the people NOT against the people, despite what his corporate masters say, he would be in maybe the same place as he is now, but WITH the people. Surely, many members of Congress, know this, at least those not blinded by money. If we do not begin to act as revolutionarys, we shall lose all.

[obxhead]

26. So who controls the strings? Where should we shift our blame? nt

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Shit creek gets deeper every day.

That sinking feeling is back.

[zbdent]

16. courts remember they have "balls" when it's a Democrat in charge ...

even when it's a "fake" Democrat/fake liberal ...

[LiberalFighter]

17. I want to know who suggests, approves and initiates these activities.

[NikRik]

21. As technology moves forward .....

we need to adjust our laws to protect the private citizens rights when using the technology. Use of a cell phone is still a private conversation between two people and should be protectedas a right to privacy !
IMHO, NikRik

[CanonRay]

22. Courts? Courts? We don't need no stinking courts.

That's where we're headed. Appoint compliant judges or ignore rulings of the others. The laws are for peasants, anyway.

[Hardrada]

27. Current rulers have a thing for military tribunals anyway.

As Stalin was find of troikas to do his bidding.