|
Post by Shadow on Dec 10, 2005 21:54:49 GMT -5
New York TimesBy MATT RICHTEL Most Americans carry cellphones, but many may not know that government agencies can track their movements through the signals emanating from the handset. In recent years, law enforcement officials have turned to cellular technology as a tool for easily and secretly monitoring the movements of suspects as they occur. But this kind of surveillance - which investigators have been able to conduct with easily obtained court orders - has now come under tougher legal scrutiny. In the last four months, three federal judges have denied prosecutors the right to get cellphone tracking information from wireless companies without first showing "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. That is the same standard applied to requests for search warrants. The rulings, issued by magistrate judges in New York, Texas and Maryland, underscore the growing debate over privacy rights and government surveillance in the digital age. With mobile phones becoming as prevalent as conventional phones (there are 195 million cellular subscribers in this country), wireless companies are starting to exploit the phones' tracking abilities. For example, companies are marketing services that turn phones into even more precise global positioning devices for driving or allowing parents to track the whereabouts of their children through the handsets.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 11, 2005 2:15:57 GMT -5
New York TimesBy MATT RICHTEL Most Americans carry cellphones, but many may not know that government agencies can track their movements through the signals emanating from the handset. In recent years, law enforcement officials have turned to cellular technology as a tool for easily and secretly monitoring the movements of suspects as they occur. But this kind of surveillance - which investigators have been able to conduct with easily obtained court orders - has now come under tougher legal scrutiny. In the last four months, three federal judges have denied prosecutors the right to get cellphone tracking information from wireless companies without first showing "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. That is the same standard applied to requests for search warrants. The rulings, issued by magistrate judges in New York, Texas and Maryland, underscore the growing debate over privacy rights and government surveillance in the digital age. With mobile phones becoming as prevalent as conventional phones (there are 195 million cellular subscribers in this country), wireless companies are starting to exploit the phones' tracking abilities. For example, companies are marketing services that turn phones into even more precise global positioning devices for driving or allowing parents to track the whereabouts of their children through the handsets. Creepy........ Hmmmm. I have lost my cellphone 3 times in the past 2 years. (Pathetic) Irony. They could find them, but I couldn't at the time. I did find 2 of them.. I lost one in my car, (!) found it at the car wash, well the attendants did. I lost one in my bedroom. In a pile of clothes. (Pitiful.) Found it. Now I have lost one-----for good.......its gone gone gone. So I get to buy another one. One that is more high tech. And one that is easier to find. I hope. (teeth chattering)
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Dec 11, 2005 10:26:31 GMT -5
I guess I'm a little strange in my ways; I never have felt a burning need to have a phone with me 24/7. I admit I don't spend much time on one anyway but this just creeps me out.
They can use all of the lost persons arguements they want but it won't make me forget that the same tech that could be used to find someone that is lost could also be abused by the wrong people. I have read or seen several examples of such abuse by police officers that needed some serious mental help, I'm not going to paint with too broad a brush on that but how many people would really feel comfortable knowing that they could be found by a jealous ex with a few connections in the right (wrong?) place?
|
|