According to the Fourth Amendment, probable cause is required to acquire any type of warrant.But recently, federal judges have been granting government officials permission to order wireless communication companies to place secret tracking devices in the cell phones of people whom the government believes to be drug traffickers, fugitives, and child abusers without necessary reasons for conviction.
Probable cause refers to the standard by which a police or government officer, official, or judge has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal property search or grant/obtain a warrant.
“Specifics necessary to establish probable cause such as relevant dates, names and places have been missing in agent affidavits,” said Magistrate Judge Brian Owsley of Corpus Christi, Texas, to The Washington Post.
Privacy advocates worry that these improperly administered warrants may expose law-abiding citizens to a new level of government scrutiny in their daily lives.
“I’m a firm believer in probable cause,” said Assistant Professor of Political Science Robert Duncan. “It’s scary. We’re a country that’s so scared of criminals and terrorists that we’re caving in and not following proper procedures.”
While government agencies like the CIA have the power to track terrorists and other suspicious persons on their own, members of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) feel that congressional oversight is lacking.
Federal officials often by-pass the court system and directly approach the cell-phone companies.
“Federal agents can tell a carrier they need real-time tracking data in an emergency but fail to follow up with the required court approval,” said Al Gidari, partner at Perkins Coie law firm to The Washington Post.
Many of the secret trafficking devices that were unlawfully installed are still in the place. The Justice Department has yet to charge federal officials or judges with following improper procedures or inappropriately granting warrants.
“There’s definitely abuse happening here (within the government),” Duncan said. “But at the root of the problem, people put themselves at risk of being tracked when they buy a cell-phone.”
Junior sociology major Chelsea Hornick-Becker doesn’t have an inherent problem with the technology. But she is suspicious of governmental abuses.
“The Patriot Act allows these kinds of things to happen,” Hornick-Becker said. “The government can request that others track anyone or anything without probable cause.”
Sophomore computer information systems major Sharp Hall pointed out that governmental and cell-phone monitoring schemes do not stop at placing secret tracking devices in phones.
“Cell-phone companies can place bugs in the microphones of cell phones and record your conversations and immediately send them back to the FBI,” Hall said.
The government’s secret activity is fueling wireless carriers to offer technology that enables cell-phone users to monitor the locations of their families and friends.
For instance, Verizon Wireless’s chaperone system enables parents to set up a “geo-fence” around a small perimeter to monitor the location of their children. If the child is in the fenced in area, the parent receives an automatic text message.
“I’m impressed by the technology, but the everyday advances which are made have a large effect on personal privacy,” said sophomore computer programming major Alex Caliva. “While (the technology) can be helpful, there’s no going back once we reach these new levels of innovation.”
Privacy advocates and law-abiding citizens alike fear the potential consequences and downfalls of this technological progression.
Duncan said, “Call me a troglodyte, but just because we can do something with technology doesn’t mean that we need to do it.