The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is arguing that warrantless searches for cell phone location data can reveal a reporter’s pattern of investigation and confidential sources. The Fourth Amendment was written with journalists in mind since journalists were subject to warrants for seditious libel. The amendment required searches to be limited to probable cause. Although RCFP’s brief was filed in a criminal trial, U.S. v. Davis, they are urging the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, rehearing en banc, to recognize the First Amendment implications of long-term location tracking. (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, November 17, 2014, by Hannah Bloch-Wehba)
Without taking a stand for or against the government, AT&T also filed a brief with the Eleventh Circuit asking for clarity. The brief said that the government orders can track the cell phone user indefinitely which raises a number of critical questions. “… the government can use that information to track the ongoing movements of particular targeted individuals, building a detailed understanding of the target’s patterns of behavior and social and professional contacts and activities. Network, application, and other technological developments are making that location information ever more detailed and precise. Considerable legal uncertainty surrounds the standards the government must satisfy to compel the production of location information, and achieving legal clarity is essential to protecting consumer privacy, defining the scope of legitimate law enforcement interests, and ensuring the efficient operation of companies operating in various sectors of the digital economy,” read the brief. (Ars Technica, November 18, 2014, by David Kravets)
In the meantime, the Obama administration came out in favor of the USA Freedom Act, a Senate bill to limit domestic spying. The bill would prevent the government from doing mass collection of the numbers and time stamps of phone calls. It forces NSA and other intelligence agencies to obtain approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain phone data and mandates some areas of privacy and transparency. (National Journal, November 17, 2014, by Justin Volz)