Big Brother Works Both Sides of the Atlantic

I was rather surprised that there seemed to be more outrage Sunday about the UK’s announced plan to roll out the same ability to monitor everyone’s online activity that the US set up after 9/11 then over Eric Lichtblau’s report–based on the ACLU’s FOIA efforts–revealing that cops all over the country are using our smart phones to spy on us.

At least from the published reports, it sounds like the Brits want to be able to do through GCHQ what NSA and FBI have been doing with hoovered telecom records for years.

A new law – which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech in May – would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant.

But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited.

[snip]

“What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals, it’s absolutely everybody’s emails, phone calls, web access…” he told the BBC.

“All that’s got to be recorded for two years and the government will be able to get at it with no by your leave from anybody.”

He said that until now anyone wishing to monitor communications had been required to gain permission from a magistrate.

Plus, such plans will likely face more of a hurdle in Parliament than such schemes to expand surveillance face in Congress.

Meanwhile, the materials collected from all over the country via ACLU’s state affiliates show that local police are using some of the same approaches–things like communities of interest–that our massive data collection supports.

And as ACLU’s summary makes clear that not just the Feds using Secret PATRIOT, but local cops, are using cell phones to track people with no warrants.

Most law enforcement agencies do not obtain a warrant to track cell phones, but some do, and the legal standards used vary widely. Some police departments protect privacy by obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause when tracking cell phones. For example, police in the County of Hawaii, Wichita, and Lexington, Ky. demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant when tracking cell phones. If these police departments can protect both public safety and privacy by meeting the warrant and probable cause requirements, then surely other agencies can as well.

Unfortunately, other departments do not always demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant when tracking cell phones. For example, police in Lincoln, Neb. obtain even GPS location data, which is more precise than cell tower location information, on telephones without demonstrating probable cause. Police in Wilson County, N.C. obtain historical cell tracking data where it is “relevant and material” to an ongoing investigation, a standard lower than probable cause.

Police use various methods to track cell phones. Most commonly, law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone records about one person from a cell phone carrier. However, some police departments, like in Gilbert, Ariz., have purchased their own cell tracking technology.

Sometimes, law enforcement agencies obtain all of the cell phone numbers at a particular location at a particular time. For example, a law enforcement agent in Tucson, Ariz. prepared a memo for fellow officers explaining how to obtain this data. And records from Cary, N.C. include a request for all phones that utilized particular cell phone towers.

Of course, all this cell phone tracking was–to some degree–available via FOIA. The Feds have far greater financial resources to do this tracking, and (in the counterterrorism realm) they do it in secret.

And if the response is any indication, folks care more about the Brits matching our surveillance than the way even our local cops have turned our cell phones into tracking devices.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

11 Responses to Big Brother Works Both Sides of the Atlantic

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel .@NathanielDWhite For McConnell? Depends on whether journalists accurately report that Mitch set this up 2 weeks ago & reinforced last week
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Pinetree_Girl: @bmaz @OKnox I think lawmakers adept at diversion from real issues. Public likes shiny objects. Has become inured to day…
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel If only Mitch McConnell hadn't decided to play chicken two weeks ago the Majority Leader might have Kept the Country Safe™
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis And that presumably also permits FBI to use additional authorities against them.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Once dissidents w/guns are "terrorists" they and friends can be pursued very differently and underlying speech criminalized.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis No. It doesn't create a new offense. It creates a new way to dub dissidents "terrorists," w/all that connotes.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis But my big worry is that this would (if passed) let govt use possession as reason to call dissidents terrorists.
20mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis That's also in Burr's bill. He increases penalties on both 2339B (FTO) and 2339A (terrorist via 2332 and other laws).
21mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @WHarkavy: @bmaz Rest of world has such a bigger impact from FIFA issues, and here we are doing this. Like Iraq, cynical ploy. Global st…
28mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis That's what my post says (3rd ¶). (Though that would mean the 2339 applies to it as well.) Seems horribly ripe for abuse.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis Bottom of page 65 here. https://t.co/L4BA0Xmi98 Section 204.
50mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ColMorrisDavis It's in his PATRIOT ACt replacement bill. It's in the Material Support extension section.
53mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930