• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cell Phone Data & Murder & Right To Privacy

Not. There does not seem to be any probable cause to assume that a single case (as opposed to a series of related serial cases) would justify undertaking such a 'fishing expedition'.

What about the tracking part, to see if he was in the area? Or who was in the area?

IMO that is not enough right there for probable cause but I do think the tracking application is justified.
 
What about the tracking part, to see if he was in the area? Or who was in the area?

IMO that is not enough right there for probable cause but I do think the tracking application is justified.

This is where it gets tricky. I could see a judge allowing a warrant for looking at cellphone metadata if presented with evidence of several similar crimes in various locations (a serial killer/robber is likely) to derive a small list of cellphone numbers that were in all (or most) of the areas at the times of the crimes. I could not see a judge allowing a warrant for looking at cellphone number metadata simply to see all cellphones that were in the area for every/any single crime.
 
The stingrays arent shelved in a restricted no-access zone and warrent = 1 time use. They can just take them out and break the law and spy on you whenever they want.

And they gather information from ALL phones within the area, not just a suspect's phone, but all phones.
 
This is where it gets tricky. I could see a judge allowing a warrant for looking at cellphone metadata if presented with evidence of several similar crimes in various locations (a serial killer/robber is likely) to derive a small list of cellphone numbers that were in all (or most) of the areas at the times of the crimes. I could not see a judge allowing a warrant for looking at cellphone number metadata simply to see all cellphones that were in the area for every/any single crime.

Yes.

To me, gathering general data on location (& date/time) only seems reasonable. That is not private or personal. OTOH, I think the bar must be much higher to access data on someone's cell phone.
 
Yes.

To me, gathering general data on location (& date/time) only seems reasonable. That is not private or personal. OTOH, I think the bar must be much higher to access data on someone's cell phone.

Are you kidding me? Based on, exactly, what probable cause?

Why beat around the bush? Just mandate that everyone carry a GPS tracking device activated at all times.
 
Are you kidding me? Based on, exactly, what probable cause?

Why beat around the bush? Just mandate that everyone carry a GPS tracking device activated at all times.

If there is a suspect and they check location data, I see no problem. What overreach do you see?
 
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)





So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?

according to the SCOTUS ruling cops cannot just track your phone. It requires a warrant to track gps location.
honestly no. I think cell phones fall under the same protections as any other need for probable cause and warrants.
 
If there is a suspect and they check location data, I see no problem. What overreach do you see?

That there was no suspect until they looked at the cellphone metadata. The way the law is supposed to work is that first you get a warrant and then you search the metadata.
 
That there was no suspect until they looked at the cellphone metadata. The way the law is supposed to work is that first you get a warrant and then you search the metadata.

So far I think I still support it even without a suspect in mind. After all, what's the distinction between cell tower location data and the security cameras everywhere these days that the police are given access to just based on the location of a crime alone?
 
So far I think I still support it even without a suspect in mind. After all, what's the distinction between cell tower location data and the security cameras everywhere these days that the police are given access to just based on the location of a crime alone?

Quite a bit actually. Since a cellphone can't be seen or pinpointed to any specific location. It's not like you saw me or my cellphone at the crime scene - you just know that I might have been (the cellphone could have been left in a shared vehicle) in the area. Why should anyone become a 'person of interest' just for having been somewhat near a crime scene? On the other hand, if my cellphone was the only one (or one of two or three) near several very similar crime scenes, at around the time of those crimes, in different locations then that may rise to the level of 'person of interest'.
 
Quite a bit actually. Since a cellphone can't be seen or pinpointed to any specific location. It's not like you saw me or my cellphone at the crime scene - you just know that I might have been (the cellphone could have been left in a shared vehicle) in the area. Why should anyone become a 'person of interest' just for having been somewhat near a crime scene? On the other hand, if my cellphone was the only one (or one of two or three) near several very similar crime scenes, at around the time of those crimes, in different locations then that may rise to the level of 'person of interest'.

Security cameras are used in the same way. They do not have to capture the actual crime...but the cops use them to try and identify people in the area when the crime was committed.
 
Thats gonna be great.... When the data shows you were the only person in an area but the crime was actually committed by someone without a phone.....
 
Security cameras are used in the same way. They do not have to capture the actual crime...but the cops use them to try and identify people in the area when the crime was committed.

That's true, but in general terms security cameras are filming/recording public areas for the most part, whereas cell phones are considered to be private property with private information.
 
That's true, but in general terms security cameras are filming/recording public areas for the most part, whereas cell phones are considered to be private property with private information.

Yes, I agree. But just using location info does not open up the private info. If you are out in public, just like they've decided with security cameras, you are legally subject to that basic identification.

Now if you were located in a private residence/property when they found you...that might also be different.
 
https://www.delawareonline.com/stor...g-may-derail-hockessin-murder-case/754978002/

Hopefully y'all can view that article. If not try clearing your cookies, then clicking the link.
(I apologize for the rather crappy format of that site, but it is what it is)





So, who should be able to access your cell phone data and when?

It's evident the guy accused of murder in this Delaware case was tracked down based on cell phone data.
A GPS signature/fingerprint that then led to discovering much more damning evidence of his guilt.

Was what law enforcement did at the beginning of this investigation something they should be able to do? Or not?

At what point is what you do with, or on your smartphone, no longer protected property/information?

IMO, the police had enough probable cause to access that cell phone data. Just like seizing a computer in any other case. Cell phones aren't a special case.
 
Yes, I agree. But just using location info does not open up the private info. If you are out in public, just like they've decided with security cameras, you are legally subject to that basic identification.

Now if you were located in a private residence/property when they found you...that might also be different.

That's a fair point, and I agree.

Related, I am old school and understand that cellphones are actually radios, and as such are covered by the Communications Act of 1934, which clarifies that radio transmissions are in the public domain. It clarified that any radio transmission can be monitored by any person with the equipment necessary to do the monitoring. Thus ALL cellphone transmissions are in the public domain.

That law was contravened when the cell phone industry persuaded Congress to pass a contradictory law back in the late 80's or early 90's that declared it was illegal for anybody to listen to cell phones. As technology has evolved, that point has become moot when cell phones went away from analog to digital format.
 
Back
Top Bottom