So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant, but it's not okay to sell it commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?
Edit: start with Hayden. They admitted exactly how it all works and what the judges allowed. Read up on the many EFF lawsuits that were shut down.
0 effective difference.
However, it is still not the same as the phone company selling location data. They have EVERYONE's location data for all time; it is not like they have to 'turn it on' for you and then are only able to spy on you going forward. They just have all of it, all the time.
The difference is that a stingray is like one cell tower being able to spy on people... the phone company is ALL THE CELL TOWERS being able to spy on you... and not only being ABLE to, are just always doing it no matter what, for everyone.
Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
> Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
A single carrier likely couldn't do that without coordinating with other carriers (as a client roams to a new net).
On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill.
It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?
As a parallel statement:
> So it's okay for defense contractors to sell tanks to the government but not commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
The government, Democrats and Republicans, basically do whatever corporations want, so this action is surprising and welcome.
I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.
Likely explanation is the wealthy and powerful have a personal interest here. Consider the security nightmare that phone tacking poses for high wealth individuals.
It's the only reason in my mind the government should have access to that info, and it's a damn good one
Where's the opt-out button on my device to ensure my 4th Amendment right is exercised?
Oh, right. It's forced. "Freedom".
Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL
Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
That's exactly how it works:
> When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transm...
I don't see where the article addresses that point. While it has some resemblance, seems like a different issue covered by different parts of law.
Ask the FCC if they believe sharing to government is legal.