http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgAdSMMdFmI
---
Judge Declares Law Governing Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Unconstitutional
In a succinct one-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas declared that the law authorizing the government to obtain cellphone records without a search warrant was unconstitutional.
“The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made,” Judge Hughes wrote in the decision, dated Nov. 11. “These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.”
Judge Hughes’ decision comes as the U.S. government is facing increasing judicial challenges to its practice of obtaining information about the location of individuals without a search warrant. Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case where the government placed a GPS tracking device under a vehicle and monitored the driver’s movements for a month without a search warrant.
During the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said to Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general of the Justice Department: “If you win this case then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States.” The Justice Department argues that people have no expectation of privacy on public roads.
Cellphone records are governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that permits law enforcement officers to obtain certain digital records – such as some e-mail and cellphone records – without a search warrant. A coalition of technology companies—including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search warrants in more digital investigations.
At the same time, judges in lower courts have been questioning the constitutionality of the law, which only requires officers to show “specific and articulable facts” the electronic records sought are “relevant and material” to an ongoing investigation. For physical searches of a person’s home, the government is required to show probable cause that a crime was committed and obtain a search warrant.
Since 2005, more than a dozen magistrate judges have written opinions denying applications for court orders to track cellphones without search warrants. The nation’s roughly 500 magistrate judges handle applications for search warrants and other types of electronic surveillance in federal courts.
Of course, some have upheld warrantless searches. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that the government could obtain data from the Twitter accounts of three WikiLeaks without a search warrant.
Last year, Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith of U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion denying the government access to 60 days worth of information about a cellphone subscriber’s location and phone calls, without a search warrant.
Magistrate Judge Smith wrote that although cellphone tracking wasn’t envisioned by the writers of the Constitution, it had become so precise and pervasive that “for a cellphone user born in 1984, however, it is now conceivable that every movement of his adult life can be imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud. Now as then, the Fourth Amendment remains our polestar.”
The government appealed, saying that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not apply because “a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer’s private papers.” The government also challenged Judge Smith’s description of the accuracy of location tracking as “inaccurate or misleading,” and submitted an affidavit from cellular provider MetroPCS Wireless Inc. stating that the average coverage radius of its cellular towers was about “one or two miles.”
The district court ruling was short, but declarative. It affirmed Magistrate Judge Smith’s decision on constitutional grounds. “When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause,” Judge Hughes wrote. “The standard under the [existing law] is below that required by the Constitution.”
“The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made,” Judge Hughes wrote in the decision, dated Nov. 11. “These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.”
Judge Hughes’ decision comes as the U.S. government is facing increasing judicial challenges to its practice of obtaining information about the location of individuals without a search warrant. Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case where the government placed a GPS tracking device under a vehicle and monitored the driver’s movements for a month without a search warrant.
During the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said to Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general of the Justice Department: “If you win this case then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States.” The Justice Department argues that people have no expectation of privacy on public roads.
Cellphone records are governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that permits law enforcement officers to obtain certain digital records – such as some e-mail and cellphone records – without a search warrant. A coalition of technology companies—including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search warrants in more digital investigations.
At the same time, judges in lower courts have been questioning the constitutionality of the law, which only requires officers to show “specific and articulable facts” the electronic records sought are “relevant and material” to an ongoing investigation. For physical searches of a person’s home, the government is required to show probable cause that a crime was committed and obtain a search warrant.
Since 2005, more than a dozen magistrate judges have written opinions denying applications for court orders to track cellphones without search warrants. The nation’s roughly 500 magistrate judges handle applications for search warrants and other types of electronic surveillance in federal courts.
Of course, some have upheld warrantless searches. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that the government could obtain data from the Twitter accounts of three WikiLeaks without a search warrant.
Last year, Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith of U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion denying the government access to 60 days worth of information about a cellphone subscriber’s location and phone calls, without a search warrant.
Magistrate Judge Smith wrote that although cellphone tracking wasn’t envisioned by the writers of the Constitution, it had become so precise and pervasive that “for a cellphone user born in 1984, however, it is now conceivable that every movement of his adult life can be imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud. Now as then, the Fourth Amendment remains our polestar.”
The government appealed, saying that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not apply because “a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer’s private papers.” The government also challenged Judge Smith’s description of the accuracy of location tracking as “inaccurate or misleading,” and submitted an affidavit from cellular provider MetroPCS Wireless Inc. stating that the average coverage radius of its cellular towers was about “one or two miles.”
The district court ruling was short, but declarative. It affirmed Magistrate Judge Smith’s decision on constitutional grounds. “When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause,” Judge Hughes wrote. “The standard under the [existing law] is below that required by the Constitution.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/11/16/judge-declares-law-governing-warrantless-cellphone-tracking-unconstitutional/
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/11/amlo-candidato-2012-por-el-movimiento.html
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/11/al-cabo-la-muerte-es-flaca.html
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=18&gs_id=21&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS+Wikileaks&tok=hBrxlRoBuYm-FLFghwNgNQ&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Wikileaks&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=FIDEIIUS+Assange+&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Assange+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5291l6719l3l7152l8l7l0l0l0l0l206l867l3.3.1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=FIDEIIUS+Baltasar+Garzon&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Baltasar+Garzon&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=6710l15093l0l15532l38l26l2l0l0l0l554l3043l7.6.4.5-1l26l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
"Justicia española aplaza hasta enero proceso al juez Baltasar Garzón
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/11/amlo-candidato-2012-por-el-movimiento.html
http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/11/al-cabo-la-muerte-es-flaca.html
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=18&gs_id=21&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS+Wikileaks&tok=hBrxlRoBuYm-FLFghwNgNQ&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Wikileaks&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=FIDEIIUS+Assange+&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Assange+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5291l6719l3l7152l8l7l0l0l0l0l206l867l3.3.1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=FIDEIIUS+Baltasar+Garzon&pbx=1&oq=FIDEIIUS+Baltasar+Garzon&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=6710l15093l0l15532l38l26l2l0l0l0l554l3043l7.6.4.5-1l26l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7ddfadd03e25da7c&biw=1024&bih=543
"Justicia española aplaza hasta enero proceso al juez Baltasar Garzón
La justicia imputa a Garzón "uso de instrumentos de escucha y grabación en violación de las garantías constitucionales" en la investigación de un escándalo de corrupción conocido como "trama Gürtel".
Afp
Publicado: 18/11/2011 12:08
Publicado: 18/11/2011 12:08
Madrid.El célebre juez español Baltasar Garzón, pendiente de un proceso por haber querido investigar los crímenes amnistiados del franquismo, vio aplazado este viernes hasta enero otro juicio en su contra en un caso de espionaje ilegal por decisión del Tribunal Supremo.
Acusado de haber ordenado escuchas de conversaciones telefónicas entre sospechosos de corrupción y sus abogados, Garzón, de 56 años, había presentado recusaciones contra seis de los sietes magistrados designados para juzgarle en este caso.
La defensa del juez alega que los seis magistrados están "contaminados" por haber participado en la instrucción del caso y pide que sean reemplazados.
Esta recusación, presentada recientemente, impone la "imposibilidad de celebración del juicio oral en la fecha" inicial del 29 de noviembre, afirmó el Tribunal Supremo, que aplazó hasta el 17 de enero del 2012 el inicio del proceso para decidir sobre las recusaciones.
La justicia imputa a Garzón "uso de instrumentos de escucha y grabación en violación de las garantías constitucionales" en la investigación de un escándalo de corrupción conocido como "trama Gürtel", que a principios de 2009 salpicó al Partido Popular (PP, derecha), gran favorito para las elecciones legislativas del domingo.
De ser declarado culpable, Garzón podría quedar apartado de la judicatura durante varios años, lo que podría suponer el final de su carrera.
Conocido por ser uno de los "jueces estrella" en España debido a su gran mediatización, Garzón está a la espera de otro proceso en el Tribunal Supremo, que le juzgará por "prevaricación" por haber querido investigar sobre los desaparecidos de la Guerra Civil (1936-39) y del franquismo (1939-75) pese a la existencia de una ley de amnistía aprobada tras la muerte del dictador Francisco Franco en 1975.
El magistrado, mundialmente conocido por haber hecho detener en 1998 en Londres al ex dictador chileno Augusto Pinochet, está suspendido desde mayo de 2010 de sus funciones de juez en la Audiencia Nacional."
---------------------------------
El resistirse a lo irresistible no siempre fortalece a quienes se creen irresistibles, sí, a aquell@s que ‘no mandan obedeciendo a sus mandantes’… FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).
Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los Pueblos Investigación, análisis, documentación y denuncias sobre la injerencia y subversión contra los pueblos de América Latina
"Noam Chomsky*: Estados Unidos es el mayor terrorista del mundo..." Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
EEUU despilfarró miles de millones de dólares del area social de Irak
“We don’t do body counts”.- General Tommy Franks
http://www.cubadebate.cu/reflexiones-fidel/2010/08/03/emplazamiento-al-presidente-de-estados-unidos/
"Hey, bad guys: If it is certain that you in God trust, you should not be afraid, just let the music play…!”. FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).
ACCESO AL AGUA POTABLE, DECLARADO DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL: TRIUNFO DE LA HUMANIDAD A INSTANCIA DE EVO MORALES, C. PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA REPúBLICA DE BOLIVIA…
Perseguido por EEUU: Camarógrafo estadounidense que filmó imágenes del 11/9 enfrenta extradición
The Washington Post: Estados Unidos es el vergonzoso suministrador de armas al narcotráfico
*) "Tres generaciones se han echado a perder por mi culpa: Rius"
*) "Noam Chomsky: Los cables de WikiLeaks revelan un “profundo odio a la democracia por parte de nuestra dirigencia política” “Debemos comprender -y los Papeles del Pentágono son otro ejemplo claro- que una de las principales razones del secreto gubernamental es proteger al gobierno contra su propia población”
*) Stépahne Hessel: “No estoy aquí para testimoniar sobre lo que pasó en Chile. Estoy aquí para hablar en nombre de la evolución del derecho internacional, que siempre es demasiado lenta. Para mí este juicio representa un paso adelante porque vivimos en un mundo en el que los crímenes impunes pesan sobre la conciencia internacional” (Referida por Anne Marie Mergier en “ Sentencia implacable”
Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"
"En una extensa entrevista con 60 minutes, Julian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks, dice: “Somos activistas por la libertad de expresión. No se trata de salvar a las ballenas, se trata de darle a la gente la información que necesita para apoyar o no la caza de ballenas. ¿Por qué? Son los ingredientes crudos que se necesitan para hacer una sociedad justa. Sin ellos, simplemente estás navegando en la oscuridad”.- Julian Assange. (Tomado de 'La Jornada')
Be Traist...!
Just let the hammock swing...!
"Once again, the cat is shaking the roof...!" *
A FREE K’
Universal Rights and Universal Values... But that is romantically substantive for those who try to ignore the Universal Jurisdiction and its procedures to evade justice... FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).
Miles de simpatizantes del movimiento Ocupa marcharon del centro de Oakland a la zona portuaria. Autoridades del lugar emitieron un comunicado en el que informaron que las operaciones
estaban detenidas, lo que provocó el júbilo de los manifestantes. En una decisión sorpresiva, la alcaldesa Jean Quan dio el día a los trabajadores municipales para que se sumaran a la protesta Foto Ap
David Brooks, Corresponsal
No comments:
Post a Comment