Cell Phones and National Security

If you were hoping to get that new iPhone this holiday season, you might want to think again. Actually, you might want to ask for an extension cord for your land-based phone instead.

The WaPo reports:

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.

The issue is taking on greater relevance as wireless carriers are racing to offer sleek services that allow cellphone users to know with the touch of a button where their friends or families are. The companies are hoping to recoup investments they have made to meet a federal mandate to provide enhanced 911 (E911) location tracking. Sprint Nextel, for instance, boasts that its "loopt" service even sends an alert when a friend is near, "putting an end to missed connections in the mall, at the movies or around town." [...]

"Most people don't realize it, but they're carrying a tracking device in their pocket," said Kevin Bankston of the privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Cellphones can reveal very precise information about your location, and yet legal protections are very much up in the air."

So if you want your family, or Big Brother, knowing your every move -- go ahead and ask for that phone! Why let a thing like warrantless tracking, probable cause, or the Fourth Amendment ruin your holidays!

"Permitting surreptitious conversion of a cellphone into a tracking device without probable cause raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns especially when the phone is in a house or other place where privacy is reasonably expected," said Judge Stephen William Smith of the Southern District of Texas, whose 2005 opinion on the matter was among the first published.

But judges in a majority of districts have ruled otherwise on this issue, Boyd said. Shortly after Smith issued his decision, a magistrate judge in the same district approved a federal request for cell-tower data without requiring probable cause. And in December 2005, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York, approving a request for cell-site data, wrote that because the government did not install the "tracking device" and the user chose to carry the phone and permit transmission of its information to a carrier, no warrant was needed.

These judges are issuing orders based on the lower standard, requiring a showing of "specific and articulable facts" showing reasonable grounds to believe the data will be "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation. [...]

The trend's secrecy is troubling, privacy advocates said. No government body tracks the number of cellphone location orders sought or obtained. Congressional oversight in this area is lacking, they said. And precise location data will be easier to get if the Federal Communication Commission adopts a Justice Department proposal to make the most detailed GPS data available automatically.

For further evidence of what I think about all the, please watch the JFK video below. Listen, and weep!

Dying Woman Loses Marijuana Appeal

Angel Raich , a mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments is fighting for her life. A federal appeals court has said, too bad. Raich, like others across the country for whom conventional drugs don't work, uses marijuana.

On her doctor's advice, [Raich] eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite.

"It's not something I want to do. It's something I have to do to survive," Raich said.

A federal appeals court ruled today that Raich is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges.

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.

What makes this so insane is that marijuana is no more, or less, harmful than taking a drink of alcohol -- yet for Raich taking a drink would be legal, but using marijuana is not.

It's time to change the law -- and not just for the terminally ill.

With all that is known about it, there is no credible reason for marijuana to be illegal. And don't presume I'm making this argument because I use the drug, I don't. I just see no valid reason for it to be against the law.

Marijuana use has proven to be effective in the treatment of a number of medical conditions, which is why 11 states allow medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

Raich , 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.

"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh my God."

No one should ever have to decide between breaking the law, and saving their life.