An argument by the United States Department of Justice that law enforcement agents should have easier access to cell phone information is worrying some students.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Department of Justice is arguing in a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that the government should be able to obtain cell phone location data from phone towers without a warrant.
The debate in the Federal appellate court is concerning to Nursing sophomore Amanda Daley. “I don’t have anything to hide, but it makes me ask, what’s next?” she said, adding, “If they really need that information, why not get a warrant?”
College freshman Quratul-Ann Malik is also worried about the decision’s implications. “It reminds me of 1984,” Malik said.
“I know a couple years ago they were talking about the Patriot Act,” said Malik, noting the controversy over the act’s perceived invasion of privacy of phone conversations. “This involves actually finding out where you are, and is basically a dangerous thing,” she said.
Malik added that “the government’s intention is ensure national security. It’s their job to take advantage of technology, but at the same time, I think this isn’t necessarily the best idea.”
“[We should] learn what they’re using this for and why they need this information at all,” she said.
The case stems from a 2008 ruling on a Pittsburgh drug-trafficking case in which, according to court documents, a magistrate judge ruled that cell phone tower information used to capture suspects was improperly obtained.
“It’s the first federal court of appeals to address the issue,” said David Rudovsky, criminal defense lawyer and Penn Law professor. According to Rudovsky, the government “ought to be required to get a warrant” as per the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.
“Nobody is saying the government can’t get it [cell phone information] at some point,” Rudovsky said, emphasizing that the question revolves around what officials must do in advance to obtain it.
“The history of governmental power is that they’ll always push the envelope,” Rudovsky said. “In times of political unrest they’ll see people demonstrating against the government and ask what they are doing.”
Rudovsky also explained that cell phone location data has First Amendment implications. “If somebody goes to a house of worship or a demonstration against the government, all of which is First Amendment-protected activity, the government can use cell phone information to know.”
Penn Law Professor and former federal prosecutor Stephanos Bibas wrote in an e-mail that such cell phone information is treated as public because “the phone company can see it. But there are lots of things the phone company can see that we don’t expect the public to see.”
According to Rudovsky, the Supreme Court in recent years has been “very, very generous” to the government in terms of power given to law-enforcement agents. “They can use a dog to sniff you without probable cause because the Supreme Court says a dog sniff is not a search — therefore, the Fourth Amendment does not apply,” he said.
However, according to Bibas, the government “is far too busy with floods of crime to play Big Brother.” An increase in law-enforcement power “might be abused occasionally, but not regularly,” he wrote.
