Thread: Keeping track of your every move

Keeping track of your every move
GPS chips placed in cell phones for safety take on new purpose

February 10, 2008
By Kim Janssen
In the latest James Bond film, "Casino Royale," the suave British agent's handlers implant a microchip in his arm, allowing them to track him on a computer screen as he gallivants around the world shooting bad guys, driving fast cars and making love to beautiful women.

It is an image at once violent and disturbing, recalling the identification numbers tattooed on concentration camp victims, and cool, in the ain't-it-neat style of previous Bond gadgets, such as his underwater jet pack or his rocket-powered cigarette.

It's also entirely unnecessary: These days, most of us already carry a high-tech device that allows the government - or almost anyone else - to track our every move, whether we know it or not.

Thanks to a pricey endorsement deal, Bond carries a top-of-the-line Sony Ericsson phone, but you can be secretly tracked via whatever brand of phone you carry in your pocket, as long as it was made after 2005.

That's when a new law came into effect, mandating that all cell phones contain a Global Positioning System chip, allowing 911 operators to locate lost or distressed callers, either via satellite, or, less accurately, by triangulating the distance to nearby cell phone towers.

The law was sold as a safety measure in the wake of the

Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and has almost certainly saved lives.

But the technology allows you to be tracked around the clock, whether you're dialling 911 or your Aunt Sally, as a series of high-profile criminals have recently learned to their cost.

Fighting crime

Chicago cop Charlton McKay claimed to have been at home when 15-year-old Eddie Lucas was fatally run down by a drunken driver on the South Side in September 2005, but cell phone records placed him away from his home, and at home later, when he had claimed to be out.

The cell phone evidence destroyed his alibi and led to his conviction.

And the key role cell phone records played in bringing murder charges against Reginald Potts - accused of killing pharmaceutical saleswoman Nailah Franklin in Calumet City last summer - led first deputy Cook County State's Attorney Bob Milan to describe them as "the new DNA," a major new tool in crime fighting on a par with the 1890s development of fingerprinting and the introduction of DNA evidence 100 years later.

Detectives searching for missing Bolingbrook resident Stacy Peterson also seized upon data from the last calls made on her cell phone the day she disappeared, hoping it would lead to her discovery.

Few would complain if the measure was used against only serious criminals.

But is it, and how do we know?

Where are the boundaries?

McKay and Potts were snared when they made calls, leaving a permanent record of their approximate location, but because cell phones are constantly in communication with nearby cell towers, they also can be used to track users in real time, even if the users don't make a call.

Though a series of federal circuit court judges have ruled that police need a warrant to track someone's phone, meaning that police need to meet the same "probable cause" standard that applies to a search of your home, business or e-mail, others have required the far lower standard of mere "suspicion," while news reports suggest that in some cases, law enforcement officers track citizens without any reference to the courts whatsoever - a suggestion the industry emphatically rejects.

"We'd never hand over records without a court order," said Joe Farren, spokesman for The Wireless Association, which represents all of the major phone networks.

"And we don't keep a record of where customers have been without their consent - there's 250 million cell phone users, so it would be an immense amount of data, and we don't have any use for that information, anyway."

Uninformed consent

But Justice Department attorneys have argued that by choosing to carry a cell phone, citizens are consenting to be tracked without need of a warrant.

With no public record of the number of people being tracked, it's anyone's guess how widespread the practice is: Nearly all Southland police departments say they rely on FBI help when pursuing phone records or tracking, but Chicago FBI spokesman Ross Rice declined to discuss whether the bureau always seeks a warrant before tracking a subject, or to discuss how many people its Chicago office currently is tracking.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is attempting to force U.S. Attorneys to reveal how widespread warrantless cell phone tracking is, is pushing for all would-be trackers to be held to the "probable cause" standard traditionally needed.

"I'm surprised people haven't taken a greater interest in this," ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said. "We're not saying that nobody should be tracked; we're just saying that you should have to follow the Constitution and get a warrant from a judge before you go ahead."

Anyone can do it

Perhaps even more worryingly, you don't need to be a federal agent, equipped with the latest expensive technology and access to the phone networks' computers to track someone via their phone.

Several companies have exploited this, marketing cheap phones to parents who want to track their kids or to bosses who want to keep a close eye on their employees.

A pilot scheme which would have seen 50 Chicago cops tracked via cell phone while working in the Chicago Lawn district recently was delayed because too many blind spots, beyond the reach of the GPS satellites, were discovered, though many other city departments already use GPS to track their vehicles.

Similar software, installed on any cell phone in about 45 seconds, easily could be used for less ethical purposes.

All the would-be spy needs is a laptop, a $10 cable to connect to the phone and a minute alone with their target's phone: the software is free and easily downloaded from the Internet.

"Most Americans don't realize they are carrying a tracking device with them everywhere they go," Crump said.

"It's a huge shift in our lives that someone always knows where we are, and we haven't yet come to terms with the implications."

Kim Janssen can be reached at kjanssen@southtownstar.com or (70 633-5998.8

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/78467 ... ne.article

I can turn mine off on my phone. I wonder if all phones have that option.

A commentator where I originally found the story claims that there is software that can be used to turn your device on remotely, and even turn on the microphone for listening purposes.

oh gosh. I was afraid of that.

Regular desktop PCs can be turned on remotely if their network cards have a feature called 'wake on LAN"

This is where the ACLU should step in. That is IF they are REALLY concerned about our rights and freedoms. Yoo Hoo....ACLU.....where are you?

But Justice Department attorneys have argued that by choosing to carry a cell phone, citizens are consenting to be tracked without need of a warrant.

Now that is just about the nuttiest argument I have heard in a while.
Turning the tide huh? Consenting? Tell me how?

Warrants, please if necessary to spy on people.

The ACLU, EFT, as a few are going after the telephone and internet providers who just allow the gov to grab all stuff from the internet/phones without a warrant. Now the Prez wants to have it so no one can sue the telcomm. If they faced lawsuits they might not cooperate in the future with gov. Too bad, who are they to decide to give up personal information without a warrant. Totally ridiculous

Awwww too bad. No privacy anywhere.

My husband had a cell phone for business purposes while he was working. But he is retired now, and we hardly ever use it. The only time he uses it is to call me from the driveway so I'll unlock and open the door for him. I think our cell phone bill is less than $10 a month.

I've never had to use one, and I probably wouldn't even know how.

If there is one thing I cant stand, is to see people driving down the interstate talking on one. And I also think its rude to have cell phones in doctors offices, resturants, and at stores everywhere. IMO its rude and disruptive.

It is rude, and also dangerous when driving. I have yet to see one driver concentrating on his driving while talking.
For all the complaining most people do today about no time for themselves, etc, they sure encourage it with the use of the cell phone.
Seems they can't be separated for any length of time from comunications.