Obama attorneys argue for warrantless cell phone tracking

your right! advances in technology DO negate privacy rights! if it makes the governments life easier it can't be a violation of the constitution!

The constitution does not mention anything about the right to privacy.

the supreme court would beg to differ... and the 4th amendment is pretty clear that a warrant is required in a situation like this

Supreme Court decisions involving privacy are limited to cases involving a persons right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home or other private residence (Stanley v Georgia) and with their body (roe v wade). Private is used as a correlative of public. These cases in no way state that the police cannot use surveillance. Tracking a person via the GPS of their cell phone is akin to pursuing a person on foot, or following them in car, yet a lot more resourceful. Tracking by GPS grants police no new powers, but only increases efficiency of their operation.

There are amendments that could be interpreted to imply privacy rights, but it is never explicitly mentioned. The fourth amendment is only a weak example. Knowing the location of a person hardly amounts to illegal search and seizure. In fact a lot of warrants are obtained using classic surveillance as evidence.

wow, i wouldn't want to live under your constitution. the thought that the government can use technology to track it's citizens every move, without a warrant, flies in the face of my reading of just about every one of our founding documents.

you equating the government following you around with the government accessing your every position using a device that you purchased for personal use is amazing to me. of course the police should be able to watch me using my phone, but that doesn't give them the right to access its gps signal at will.

one is a passive means of surveillance and the other is clearly active. how can you say they are legally equivalent? if it were a device issued to citizens by the government, you may have a better argument, but cell phones are private property as are, in my opinion, all calls made on the phone and all signals (voice, data, GPS) coming from the phone. if law enforcement want to use cell phones as tracking devices for the state, they MUST get a warrant first.

You are correct in noting that cell-phone tracking is more of a passive surveillance and my comparison is not strong. I don't think that makes my overall argument weaker. I do not believe that GPS tracking is something covered, even implicitly, in any of the founding papers or that any supreme court cases regarding the right to privacy can be construed to apply to this type of tracking. You obviously disagree, so we will probably get no where arguing this. Perhaps, if you can tell me how this GPS tracking is negative/immoral/evil in itself I could be swayed.

the root of my argument is that your GPS signal is your private property, as are the contents of a phone call (which is why a wiretap requires a warrant). if you agree to that definition, the constitution is very clear about what law enforcement can and can't do.

i don't see gps tracking as inherently negative, immoral, or evil. what i do see it as is a violation of privacy IF AND ONLY IF a warrant isn't required to get that information.

i disagree with justification given by the justice department that the gps signal is just another piece of business data...

here is the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

i consider the gps signal that tracks your every location to be an "effect"

Even if I accept that a GPS signal is your private property, it is not being searched or seized. It is merely being surveyed. Much the same as police following your car or watching your house.

If GPS tracking is not inherently negative, evil or immoral, what is your problem with it? If you just think that it is unconstitutional, would you be for amending the constitution to make GPS tracking legal? Why or why not? ****Blatant appeal to emotion**** If your loved one was missing and he/she could be found and saved from a possible car wreck or hiking accident by tracking his/her GPS phone signal wouldn't you like that to happen? Or would you rather your little sister slowly freeze to death trapped in her smashed Geo Metro after it hit a patch of ice and plummeted into a snowy ravine than her privacy be violated by the state? (my apologies if you actually have a little sister that drives a Metro, that would be eerie, eh?) The only negatives I can see from this type of tracking is for criminals.

I am one of the "obama faithful" but still posted this story because i consider it to be an issue that transcends partisan politics... can't you rise above it on something this important?

NO I CANT. Cant you admit you were duped by a politician. He is no differant than any of the rest of them and that will become more and more obvious to even the most blind as time goes on. Some.......many are already starting to figure it out. Looks to me like you will be one of the last holdouts