Spooked.

Interesting article in the New York Times yesterday by Eric Lichtblau about the explosion in surveillance requests by law enforcement to our nation's cellphone carriers. Carriers received what Lichtblau describes as a "startling" 1.3 million demands for information seeking texts, gps locations and other information.

Thousands of records are turned over everyday, surprising Representative Edward J. Markey, the democrat from Massachusetts who queried the nine largest cell phone companies. These companies are making a ton on selling the information, ATT's profits went from $2.8 million in 2007 to $8.3 million last year.

We have discussed this type of unwarranted surveillance many times and I will not beat a dead horse except to say that I am curious about one particular facet of Mr. Lichtblau's article.


"With the rising prevalence of cellphones, officials at all levels of law enforcement say cell tracking represents a powerful tool to find suspects, follow leads, identify associates and cull information on a wide range of crimes.


“At every crime scene, there’s some type of mobile device,” said Peter Modafferi, chief of detectives for the Rockland County district attorney’s office in New York, who also works on investigative policies and operations with the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The need for the police to exploit that technology “has grown tremendously, and it’s absolutely vital,” he said in an interview."

Does anyone else see the failure of logic here? A classic non sequitur. Why would the need for police to "exploit the technology" grow tremendously? Why do advanced technology and information collection techniques automatically trump the Bill of Rights, specifically the right to privacy and against unwarranted search and seizure? Shouldn't those rights stay consistent whether transmitting through the latest and greatest device or transmitting through two frozen orange juice cans connected with a ball of string? How is the "need to exploit" any greater than in the pony expres or telegraph days? Or is it merely because you can.

It seems law enforcement is always quick to sieze upon new technology that will make their jobs easier, irrespective of the fact that what they are seeking might be neither constitutional or legal. And realizing how little concern dumb and uniformed citizens will have regarding those said rights.


Chris Calabrese, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U., said he was concerned not only about officials gathering phone data on people with no real connection to crimes but also about the agencies then keeping those records indefinitely in internal databases.


“The standards really are all over the place,” Mr. Calabrese said. “Nobody is saying don’t use these tools. What we’re saying is do it with consistent standards and in a way that recognizes that these are tools that really can impact people’s privacy.”