Feds push for tracking cell phones


In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department’s request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans’ privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

I thought Barry O. and his band of wack jobs loved civil rights? Isn’t this the stuff that drove libs crazy when Bush was president?

exoflare, love the sig line. :smiley:

Yes, indeed. They ranted and raved and were vociferously joined by some of our fellow posters about how wrong it was to tap the phones of expected terrorists, etc. Now the shoe is on the other foot. And it will be justified, I am sure.

January 2008 article

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me


Hmmm … you may want to check forum rules concerning your rhetoric.

But, to be exact, are we talking wireless wiretaps here?

That would be warrantless wireless wiretaps, I guess. Wonderful. :smiley:

Well, excuse me.

But the question remains: Are we talking warrantless wiretaps here? I think not.

Seriously, Beau? So, you are in favor of making a legalistic argument that Obama is still being consistent regarding privacy because he only said he wouldn’t do warrantless wiretaps? Yes, he never said anything about tracking cell phones, but obviously it is a similar invasion of privacy.

Do you think the ACLU’s concerns are unfounded? Were you in favor of the Patriot Act, or opposed?

I don’t know what the president is ‘talking here’. It sounds like tracking the location of cell calls, which does have privacy implications. However, those are not warrantless wiretaps. And, or course, you are familiar with the legal rulings that cellular phone calls have a much lower ability to be kept private (legally) than landlines?

Perhaps not, legally speaking.


I opposed parts of it.

Well, it sounds like we probably hold the same position on this. However, I don’t see where anyone said that this is warrantless wiretapping. They only posted that as an example of his past statements/stances regarding civil liberties. You may have jumped to a false conclusion here.

I am familiar with the different rules for cell phones. I haven’t read the details of the ACLU’s concerns, but it will be interesting to see what their argument is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.