Thread: Sprint Allowing Law Enforcement to track their Customer

Just when you thought Big Brother had more important things to worry about than sticking his nose into where you go and what you do a story like this one surfaces.

Between September of 2008 and October 2009 Sprint allowed law enforcement to track their customers movements over 8 million times by way of the GPS on their devices.

Kind of scary isn't it. While I am sure this has aided law enforcement the sheer magnitude of this announcement has to make you wonder who is watching. To date Sprint has given no explanation or explained what requirements the law enforcement agencies have to follow to gain access to this information.

As Berry users we should be especially concerned by this due to the outstanding security features that have been placed onto these devices. It is a shame that those security features seem to stop at our e-mail.

Or do they? I am going to have a look at a Sprint contract and see where it says I waive my right to Privacy.

Now thats an article! Thanks Vash!!! Now it really makes you wonder what the Feds are doing with this.... :aargh4:

I would like to be able to have the choice. I don't have anything to hide yet I still feel I'm entitled to be informed of any scrutiny that is being directed towards my personal whereabouts.
I'm sure Sprint is not the only carrier partaking in this practice as well.
Posted via mobile device

Would any changes to the GPS options in our phones affect this?

GPS Services: Location on / 911only

GPS Location Aiding: enabled/disabled

I have some experience with this subject.

Rest assured that there are legal obstacles to overcome before carriers release information. In most cases, a search warrant is required to track GPS data...meaning a judge has reviewed and approved law enforcement's request based on probable cause. Also, I believe the 8 million number quoted involves multiple responses to the same request (e.g., police track terrorist bomber by pinging his phone every 3-5 minutes for a week...could be about 2000 responses to law enforcement).

For account information in general, a subpoena or court order is required. Law enforcement can't just call up and get the information. The only exceptions are made for life threats (kidnappings, etc.) and FBI/Homeland Security investigations (most of which are reviewed by a special magistrate anyway).

Add this to the fact that over 270,000,000 mobile phones are in use in America and the number of affected phones is probably less than 2%.

It's the kind of report that grabs headlines, but is not as sensational or scandalous as it appears.

Sprint is still in business???

Originally Posted by gpquinn

I have some experience with this subject.

Rest assured that there are legal obstacles to overcome before carriers release information. In most cases, a search warrant is required to track GPS data...meaning a judge has reviewed and approved law enforcement's request based on probable cause. Also, I believe the 8 million number quoted involves multiple responses to the same request (e.g., police track terrorist bomber by pinging his phone every 3-5 minutes for a week...could be about 2000 responses to law enforcement).

For account information in general, a subpoena or court order is required. Law enforcement can't just call up and get the information. The only exceptions are made for life threats (kidnappings, etc.) and FBI/Homeland Security investigations (most of which are reviewed by a special magistrate anyway).

Add this to the fact that over 270,000,000 mobile phones are in use in America and the number of affected phones is probably less than 2%.

It's the kind of report that grabs headlines, but is not as sensational or scandalous as it appears.

\
Very will put unless you have some knowledge of the law or work as a LEO this kind of article will scare the hell out of people. Thanks For Clarifying this info for everyone.

Originally Posted by johnnydangerous3

Sprint is still in business???

Barely :laugh2:

2% or not, what happen to freedom of privacy guaranteed by US constitution? Oh yeah I forgot, George Bush decided to re-write it to his liking. I have nothing to hide but the fact that our privacy is being violated without consent and chance to fight a court order is ridiculous IMO. This should grab headlines and disgust people as people shouldn't be allowed to manipulate our constitution willy nilly.

willy nilly

can you show me, exactly where in the constitution we are guaranteed privacy? The closest i found was the 4th amendment which states freedom of your person, property and papers.
q.v.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.

There is no mention of privacy. even though the ninth amendment vaguely suggests it:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

IDK, sucks, but that is the wording. We need to tell our legislators they will be out of a job if they continue this crap. thats how it will stop.

Here are some example of how personal privacy is protected by the constitution.

Privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Law enforcement officials at the Federal and local level need warrants to gain access to phone records and location. Even if you turn GPS off your location can still be determined by triangulation, just to a less accurate degree.

All phone companies are obligated to comply with this when a warrant is issued by a legal authority.
Posted via mobile device

So in another words, if you are doing something you shouldn't be, and don't want to get caught, turn your phone off.
Posted via mobile device

Originally Posted by gpquinn

I have some experience with this subject.

Rest assured that there are legal obstacles to overcome before carriers release information. In most cases, a search warrant is required to track GPS data...meaning a judge has reviewed and approved law enforcement's request based on probable cause. Also, I believe the 8 million number quoted involves multiple responses to the same request (e.g., police track terrorist bomber by pinging his phone every 3-5 minutes for a week...could be about 2000 responses to law enforcement).

For account information in general, a subpoena or court order is required. Law enforcement can't just call up and get the information. The only exceptions are made for life threats (kidnappings, etc.) and FBI/Homeland Security investigations (most of which are reviewed by a special magistrate anyway).

Add this to the fact that over 270,000,000 mobile phones are in use in America and the number of affected phones is probably less than 2%.

It's the kind of report that grabs headlines, but is not as sensational or scandalous as it appears.

2% of all the phones in America but what is the percentage of all the phone's on Sprint's network?

i honestly think that sprint has been doing this for some time now

Originally Posted by OhioStateJeff

Law enforcement officials at the Federal and local level need warrants to gain access to phone records and location. Even if you turn GPS off your location can still be determined by triangulation, just to a less accurate degree.

All phone companies are obligated to comply with this when a warrant is issued by a legal authority.
Posted via mobile device

USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sprint is gayyy, they shouldn't do this to the customers.

Originally Posted by jlevy73

Here are some example of how personal privacy is protected by the constitution.

Privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

None of those guarantee privacy. Those refer to the penumbras of the law and were used to create an artificial right to privacy. Technically it doesn't exist in the Constitution, but that is almost irrelevant to this who issue. The fact is that Sprint has no choice under federal law, but to comply with law enforcement.

Originally Posted by SJSU159120

None of those guarantee privacy. Those refer to the penumbras of the law and were used to create an artificial right to privacy. Technically it doesn't exist in the Constitution, but that is almost irrelevant to this who issue. The fact is that Sprint has no choice under federal law, but to comply with law enforcement.

You are correct, and whose to say Sprint is the only carrier doing this.