Can Police Monitor Your Cell Conversations Without a Warrant?

Courts diverge on whether phone data is private or public

If there's one consistent thread regarding cellphone privacy it's this: the courts are inconsistent. But the Senate may try to establish strong federal guidelines regarding warrants and digital communications on Thursday, when a committee discusses changes to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

The ECPA is being updated to clearly define how government agencies can monitor digital communications, especially in the form of email. In the past, the New York Times reports, courts have used the ECPA to permit warrantless surveillance of some cellphone data.

Some legal experts argue that a cellphone can be considered a "container" holding evidence that is not private, and therefore no warrant is needed. But as one Rhode Island judge suggests, cellphone data is more like a face-to-face conversation with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the NYTimes reports.

Another factor in the equation is a debate over who owns cellphone data. Police agencies argue citizens can't claim privacy over signals transmitted to a cellphone tower. But those transmissions often carry with them information on the user's whereabouts, something privacy advocates say is inherently private.

Via the New York Times

Should police be able to access your cellphone data without a warrant?

[PNWest]

Cell phones broadcast over the public airwaves. Transmissions can be received and decoded by whoever cares to. Whether or not they can be used in court or not is debatable. Probably not without a warrant but with the conservative in the judicial system they may allow it.

[Big-R]

You are mostly correct. The FCC regulates that cell phone signals are not to be intercepted by commercially available receivers. As in a scanner. But, a simple modification to those devices allows them receive the data. You would need specialized decoding equipment to basically break down the signal and decrypt the data. The data which is then discovered could be reviewed, but without a warrant for said data, it is not admissible in court. In court it would be viewed as warrant less wire tapping. Rendering it useless, and a constitutional violation. The "Loop Hole" would be to discover the data, formulate the Probable Cause, apply for the warrant, then enter the information for charges. Hope this helps you out.

[PNWest]

@Big-R Damn. Did you get this at the Ben's Guide site? I figured that it wouldn't be too hard to get a scanner that could receive cell phone frequencies and that somewhere in the dark corners of the internet you could find software to decode it on the fly. It would be next to impossible to catch an official organization doing something like this and while not admissible in court the interesting things that you heard might open up other areas of interest that could be pursued in a more conventional way.

[Big-R]

@PNWest No not at bens! Lol. But yes it does not take much to get the proper equipment. A lot of modern ham radio's in the giga hertz range are capable of receiving the frequencies. Though like I said, they are mandated by the FCC to "Not Be Capable to Receive the Frequencies". Most can be modified to have an open receiver which puts them in the spectrum. It is actually pretty easy most times to do. The software to decode the individual cell carrier is the hard part. Then the formulation of PC is directed towards what ever the agency currently has on the "Offender". And yes unless there is a outside investigation conducted, no one would ever know. Usually the FBI would conduct that investigation on the agency.

[jessejaymes]

I don't think they should be able to monitor any conversation without a warrant under any circumstances. But want to bet how this works out? I mean after all the Patriot act allows our govt to imprison us without charge, trial or attorney FOR LIFE. This is just another brick in the wall.

[blue_yahoo]

Well in my opinion no. But then again common sense about privacy and who "owns" what has gone out the window since 9/11. Of course the only ones who are going to throw a hissy is the ones doing something they shouldn't.

[Hireman]

Or the people who think the government needs limitations on its power and reach.

[marine1]

is this a one way street or can we listen to them also? There are a lot of goverment activities that do not meet the smell test and could/should be discovered.

[Romney2012]

No! This is the beginning of martial law! Conversations over airwaves are just as private as regular ones! That is like the government placing microphones on everyone!!

[Your_Name_Here]

Radio data is not just as private as other means of communication. The FCC at one time had a provision (it may still be in effect) stating anyone had a right to receive any communication that was broadcast over the airwaves. At one point in time it changed and those receivers are no longer available. I do own a receiver that allows me to listed to cell phone broadcasts legally. If I was to listen to a call, determine a crime was taking place, report it to police - that may be admissible in court.

[Romney2012]

@Your_Name_Here I know what you mean, my Dad always used to tap into cell phone calls, but what I mean is that a cell convo can be just as private as a regular one. And people should get respect and privacy in regular convos and cell ones to.

[whataGOVwehave]

Absolutely not.....but they do it anyway.

[MongoAPillager]

UUUMMMmmm,it depends on the meaning of the word"is"

[FFX_VA]

A warrant is needed for data forensics. Listening to the idiot in the next stall talking on his phone is legal, disturbing but legal. Can't the person on the other end hear the flushing noises? Seems rude....and no I'm in there typing this :p

[MongoAPillager]

Cell phone spying is so yesterday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

[MongoAPillager]

Big Brothers got your back(and front,side,inside and feet} http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_n...

[kirbstomp1]

I remember in high school I wrote a paper on warrantless wiretapping and the patriot act. They've been able to do this stuff for years. regardless if it is beneficial to our nation, it infringes upon the right of privacy

[KyleMFb]

No they shouldn't but the NSA already does so.....

[GetAwake]

As long as it doesn't get in the way of them trampling all over the rest of our constitutional rights. I'd hate to think that we're sidelining officers that could otherwise be pulling over old ladies with broken taillights.

[MongoAPillager]

Remember That Google is also looking out for you http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/goog...

[Denizen_Kate]

Thank you. People should be more aware of the privacy issues with online providers like Google, Facebook, et al. As your linked story says, we don't even get to KNOW what they share with government agencies.

[MongoAPillager]

@Denizen_Kate also this is what they are admitting to,i read an article that said on average we were 5 years behind the info we are feed concerning military and secrecy projects,remember you are never alone with schizophrenia : }

[mimi57]

@MongoAPillager LOL...I remember when I was younger thinking all this 'secrecy' stuff was crazy, or the people
believing it were...now, not so much.

[SmedleyButler]

@Denizen_Kate Don't use google, ther is a new one that does not record your data or IP
startpage.com . They are working on a email server that is anonymous too.

[MongoAPillager]

@mimi57 yep'i remember back in the early 90,s being labeled as a black helicopter nut,Militia nut,etc almost everything that was called wack job info is now pretty much main stream,of course Mongo still Wack job

[dances-weebles]

no

[dances-weebles]

during the 50s and before, and even up into the early 60s the phone company operator monitored all calls at will and reported anything that she didn't like... that included swearing. nothing's changed very much, i guess.

[norezen]

If I owned a cell phone company and a customer demanded that I ensure their privacy, I would reply in the negative.
There is no possible way a cell phone company can promise you privacy.
That said, if the police are the ones intercepting your calls, shrug.

[CommonSense]

Anybody who does this, including a police officer who doesn't have a warrant should be prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
In fact police who do this without a warrant deserve an even harsher sentence. It's about time we use the criminal justice system to protect people's constitutional liberties. Police and other public officials who trample over the Constitution should face real consequences for it. Disbarment from any position of public trust and a long prison sentence is in order.

[st-louie12]

It is my opinion that most of what and where a private Citizen says and the way of conveying what is said should be held to a high degree of privacey. Athough that is not always the case. Just like this right now, We're are being monitored by some entity of the law. Monitoring of social networking has been going on for some time now. Before long every aspect of human life will be under the thumb of big brother.

[woodtick57]

When my daughters were growing up i told them to go into electronic privacy law. they'd be on the cutting of our legal and technology systems...but noooo... they had to be nurses and teachers and help people...

Ingrates. now whose gonna keep me living in the style I am used to when i'm old? guess it's up to my grandson and daughter now...

:)

[CharlieRosencr]

No. That's ridiculous. We must maintain privacy.

[woodtick57]

What makes you think they are private now?

[woodtick57]

Do you use a blackberry?

[CharlieRosencr]

I know it's not private. Everything we do can be monitored and accessed, even everything we do on our computer. And I don't like it. I'm definitely not a fan of people knowing everything I do.

[woodtick57]

I'd say the police, NSA, CIA ,KFC ,FBI, KGB, ISI ,the Mossad and anybody else should be able to tap the calls of rude cell phone users that don't hang up wen dealing with other humans, or shout into their phones in quiet or crowded public places. Obviously they do not care about theirs, or others' privacy.

[dances-weebles]

now, you may have a point here that i can agree with. how about when you see a guy sitting in a restaurant with is family, the food is on the table and his wife and two kids are waiting to eat while he sits turned sideways to them talking on his cel-fone for almost an hour and ignoring them.

[dances-weebles]

have you ever sat on a bench in a public place watching people walking past? how many do you see now who don't have something plugged into their ear? are people so terrified to be alone inside their own heads that they can't put their binkie in their pocket for a while and pay attention to those who are around them? can you possibly imagine why most people think that they have something so earth-shaking to say that it can't wait until they get home to talk on the phone?

[twinertia]

Of course they shouldn't (but, of course, they will).