The Obama administration, while progressive in some areas, still appears to be on the same page as the Bush administration regarding warrentless servailance.
The Obama administration says the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers.
The position is being staked out in a little-noticed surveillance case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The case has wide-ranging implications for Americans, as most citizens have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan.
At issue is whether the government can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant. While judges have varied on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution.
The sticky part about the cell phone records is that they include general location as well. So not only can your phone records be pulled without a warrent, but so can your approximate location.
(Can anyone tell me if the location derived from cell-phone triangulation is admissiable in US or foreign courts?)
Also of note the White house has called “National Security” regarding the contents of the recently-proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement:
The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a “properly classified” national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.
“Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full,” wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the “classified” information.
In early January, the Bush administration made the same claim in rejecting (.pdf) a similar FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers’ communications.
Between this, and the recent developments in the Al-Haramain domestic spying case that may result in the same kind of evidence sequestering or destruction that led to the 2005 destruction of video tape evidence that was being used by the ACLU to prove government mistreatment of prisoners, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
To some degree, the current adminstration has been very true to their pledges of transparency, especially in regards to cleaning up past messes like Gitmo, but as the above links show, there are still some areas where the spectre of the Bush administration lives on in the House of Change. At least for now.
But is that really all that shocking? Electronic information, is still “the new threat” in many circles and policy regarding electronic and information freedoms are still in flux worldwide and across the US. There are things that almost everyone can agree are “bad” — like torture. But ask the person on the street about their electronic liberties and you’re likely to get a blank stare or a lecture about Chris Hanson and America’s Next Top Pedophile.
Linked from: Wired Threat Level and Even More Wired Threat Level