Big Brother is tracking you: GPS and the 4th Amendment

From Salon.com:

When is a search not a search?

Or, more pointedly: When are electronic or other forms of surveillance of an individual considered a search under the Fourth Amendment -- thus requiring a valid warrant to conduct such surveillance in a manner that protects the individual from 'unlawful search and seizure'?

How the U.S. Supreme Court answers that question, in a case on its docket for the term starting in October, will have far-reaching implications for the power of government and for the privacy of individuals, according to lawyers and privacy rights advocates.

If the Court holds that warrants are not required for this type of surveillance, it could mean 'the technological death of the Fourth Amendment,” warns Arkansas-based attorney John Wesley Hall, a leading Fourth Amendment expert who also writes a blog and runs a website.

Woman Claims TSA Agents Took Her Insulin Before Boarding Flight

From CBS Denver:

The Transportation Security Administration has apologized to an Aurora woman after taking her insulin before she boarded a flight.

The incident happened at Denver International Airport on Thursday. The woman, who is six months pregnant, was getting ready to board a flight to Phoenix. She said she had traveled with her insulin before and never had a problem.

“Why is it that she was treated with such disrespect? Why is it that she was treated as if she did something wrong?” said the woman’s husband, Aaron Nieman.

Geolocation Data for Tax Collection

From the Law of Data Security & Investigations blog:

Social media like Yfrog, Flickr, Twitter, Instapaper, Foursquare and innumerable others broadcast an astonishing trove of publicly-accessible geolocation data about users.

This data can be aggregated so an observer can track people who are, for example, using mobile devices to tweet, “check-in” and publish photo albums of their minute-to-minute lives. Some mobile apps broadcast geolocation data constantly, automatically. A program aptly named “Creepy” demonstrates how to aggregate geolocation data from multiple public sources. It can plot a social media enthusiast’s up-to-the minute movement on a Google map!

In Defense of Internet Anonymity -- Again

From Datamation:

This summer, one of the hottest issues in technology is online anonymity. Specifically, do users have a right to hide their identity behind pseudonyms, or should they be required to use a real name? The answer is especially important to free and open source software supporters – the Linux community – for whom the rights of users are central issues.

The issues that surround anonymity are as old as the Internet. In fact, in the early 1990s, nicknames were part of the fun of being online -- an attitude that persists today in IRC and Instant Messaging, as well as on some sites and mailing lists.

However, at least two recent events have revived the old issues. To start with, after lengthy debate, the House Judiciary Committee recently approved bill H.R. 1981, which requires Internet service providers to keep a record of their customer's activities for twelve months.

Big Brother is coming

From United Liberty:

The book 1984 is probably the most pan-partisan book ever. Regardless of your political ideology, the book scares the pants off of you, at least to some extent. If you’re like 99.9% of the population, you blame the another side for taking us closer to the point that Big Brother is reality. Laws that extent surveillance powers are usually the most vehemently debated because of that fear of 1984′s world. Only now, it seems the government’s skipping the new laws and just trying to change the interpretation of current law for the same effect. At least, that’s according to a couple of senators who would, at least in theory, have a clue about what’s going on.

Collecting DNA from Arrestees Is Unconstitutional, First District Rules

From Law.com:

A California law that mandates DNA samples be taken from felony arrestees is unconstitutional, a state appeal court ruled Thursday.

'The question this case presents, which is increasingly presented to the courts of this state and nation, is the extent to which technology can be permitted to diminish the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment,' wrote First District Justice J. Anthony Kline.

California voters amended the state's DNA Act in 2004. Among other things, the change required law enforcement officials — starting in January 2009 — to take DNA samples from any adult arrested for or charged with any felony.

Mobile biometrics to hit US streets

From Al Jazeera English:

We're fast approaching a time when law enforcement will no longer need to ask you for your identification - your physical self, and the biometric data therein, are all that will be required to identify you.

A gadget attached to a mobile phone can photograph and plot key points and features on your face (breaking the numbers down into biometric data), scan your iris and take your fingerprints on the spot.

This gizmo doesn't exist in a futuristic world - it's already been prototyped and tested. By autumn, the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System (MORIS), which will allow 40 law enforcement agencies across the US to carry out such biometric diagnostics, will be rolled out. So far, the 1,000 units on order - at $3,000 and 12.5 oz per device - will be going to sheriff and police departments.

Forced DNA Collection Without Search Warrant Violates Privacy Rights

From Censorship in America:

The forced collection of DNA samples from arrestees without search warrants violates their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal appeals court in an amicus brief filed Monday.

A federal law mandates DNA collection as a condition for bail for people who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI receives the DNA samples, conducts an analysis, and places a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who are not eventually convicted of a crime must make a request if they want their information removed from the FBI’s system, while the data collected without cause from other individuals remains permanently. In its amicus brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, EFF argues that this collection and storage is unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on baseless search and seizure of private information.

“DNA reveals an extraordinary amount of private information about you—your family background, your current health, your future propensity for disease, and possibly even your behavioral tendencies,” said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. “This data is bound to get even more sensitive as technology advances and we learn more about DNA.”

Police may not charge drivers stopped just to obtain information, Maine court rules

From the Bangor Daily News:

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled that a police officer may not charge a driver with a crime if the person initially was stopped solely because the officer was seeking information.

The court vacated the drunken driving conviction in Hancock County Superior Court of Ronald A. LaPlante, 53, of Bangor. He was arrested after a Maine State Police trooper stopped him to ask whether he had been passed by a suspected speeder.

Justices heard oral arguments in the case in June when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court convened at the Penobscot Judicial Center in Bangor.

Biometric devices and U.S. law enforcement: smart, but legal?

From SmartPlanet:

Forty law enforcement agencies in the United States will, by this fall, employ the use of biometric diagnostic equipment to better identify people they come in contact with.

One thousand units of the $3,000 device, officially called the “Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System,” or MORIS, are already on order. But a new report by Al-Jazeera English raises questions about the legality of such a system.

First, the facts: inky fingerprinting and polaroid photos are policing techniques of the past. The future involves the use of biometric indicators — unique physical aspects, such as fingerprints, eye scans and other can’t-easily-be-replicated traits — to properly identify suspects.

ACLU Fights for Answers on Police Phone Location Data Tracking

From DailyTech:

Back in the 1990s, in order to track a cell phone you would have to triangulate the signal to its source -- an imprecise science that would merely put you 'in the ballpark' of the caller. That all changed when GPS chips were added to today's smartphones.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday announced [press release] a 'massive coordinated information-seeking campaign', probing police use of location data in their investigations. In total 379 requests for information were filed under state freedom of information laws by 34 local chapters across the country.

Police tracking is something most Americans never think might happen.

GPS devices are typically a highly appreciated addition to cell phones, as they allow precise location-aware maps, turn-by-turn driving directions, and other 'location aware' services. However, they are also used by companies like Google Inc. (GOOG) and Apple, Inc. (AAPL) to target advertisements at users.

Congress out to spy on your 'puter

From the NYPOST.com:

If Congress had to name laws honestly, it would be called the 'Forcing Your Internet Provider to Spy On You Just In Case You're a Criminal Act of 2011' -- a costly, invasive mandate that even the co-author of the Patriot Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), says 'runs roughshod over the rights of people who use the Internet.'

But because it's disguised as the 'Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act,' the House Judiciary Committee approved it last week by a wide margin -- even though it's got little to do with child porn and won't do much to protect kids.

The centerpiece of this ill-conceived law is a sweeping requirement that commercial Internet providers retain a one-year log of all the temporary Internet Protocol addresses they assign to their users, along with customer-identification information. The Justice Department says this will help track down child-porn peddlers by linking online activity and real-world identities. But the government would be able to access that sensitive data for all kinds of investigations, most of which would have nothing to do with child porn.