New study reveals 74% of smartphone users enable geolocation software.

A Pew Internet & American Life Project report found 74 percent of U.S. smartphone owners use the device to get real-time location-based information, and 18 percent use a geosocial service to “check in” or share their location. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Just_In_Time_Info.pdf

Over the past year, smartphone ownership among US adults has risen from 35 percent to 46 percent, the study noted.

This means that the overall proportion of US adults who get location-based information has almost doubled over that time period, from 23 percent in May 2011 to 41 percent in February 2012.
The percentage of US adults using geosocial services like Foursquare has likewise risen from four percent in 2011 to 10 percent in 2012.

“We’ve watched mobile phones become increasingly entwined in people’s everyday activities, and location-based services are an important part of that,” report author Kathryn Zickuhr said.
“Smartphones’ geolocation abilities are clearly popular with their users, who can get the information they want exactly when and where they want it.”

The jump in location services has also raised privacy issues and has prompted lawmakers to consider efforts to protect the privacy of people whose location can be tracked.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/11/74-percent-of-smartphone-owners-use-geolocation-tools-study/


Federal Courts split on forgiving police use of GPS evidence.

The US Supreme Court in January laid down the final verdict that police may not install GPS tracking devices on automobiles without the sanction of a warrant signed by an independent magistrate. The issue remains far from settled, however. Two federal district courts last week issued contradictory rulings over whether police could get away with the results of warrantless GPS surveillance conducted prior to the US v. Jones ruling.

Prosecutors insist officers acting in "good faith" should not have their evidence excluded because it was not illegal before the Supreme Court ruling was handed down. Prosecutors cited last year's Davis v. US high court case to argue the exclusionary rule is meant to deter bad conduct on the part of law enforcement, and that sanction ought not apply when the officers acted in accordance with the laws in effect at the time. In two separate cases, the US District Court for the District of Idaho sided with prosecutors last Monday and the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sided with the defense on Wednesday.

On October 28, 2011, Idaho State Police detectives placed a GPS tracker on Juan Aquilar's gray 2008 Chevrolet Impala. It was monitored until November 24, 2011. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 14, 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation installed a tracker on Harry Katzin's Dodge Caravan. The courts considered whether the evidence gathered from the device could be admitted in court given the Jones ruling.

"At the time the GPS devices were used in this case, binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit established that the warrantless attachment of GPS devices did not violate the Fourth Amendment," US District Court Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in the Idaho case. "Thus, law enforcement officers, when they placed the GPS tracker on Mr. Aquilar's car in October and November of 2011, were acting in objectively reasonable reliance on the binding appellate precedent provided by McIver and Pineda-Morales. Accordingly, the exclusionary rule will not be applied here because suppression of the evidence obtained would do nothing to deter police misconduct."

The federal judge in Pennsylvania came to a different conclusion based on facts that were largely similar. The one distinction is that the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, had not ruled on the legality of warrantless GPS surveillance. The FBI insisted it acted in good faith reliance on a number of federal cases upholding GPS searches.

"In this case, at the time the GPS device was placed on the Dodge Caravan there were four circuit courts of appeals that arguably could have supported the government's conduct and one that would not have, meaning that fewer than half of the circuits had even weighed in on the question," US District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter wrote. "If law enforcement is permitted to rely on authority from a minority of other circuits to support the constitutionality of its investigatory practices, where does a district court draw the line when binding precedent later renders those practices unconstitutional? Is law enforcement reliance on a significant minority or, somewhat better, a bare majority of circuits to have addressed the topic enough, or is an overwhelming majority, if not unanimity, required? Does it matter which circuits (or which panels in which circuits) support or condemn the investigatory practice? Does it matter how many circuits have squarely addressed the issue? The difficulty presented by the dilemma ought to be manifest."

Judge Pratter went on to grant exclusion of the evidence gathered against Katzin without a warrant as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"Opening to the government the shelter of the good faith exception in this case would encourage law enforcement to beg forgiveness rather than ask permission in ambiguous situations involving the basic civil rights," Pratter concluded. "In the face of Jones, this the court will not do."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3792.asp

US v. Katzkin & Aquilar: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-gpsapply.pdf

Few companies fight Patriot Act gag orders, FBI admits.

Since the Patriot Act broadly expanded the power of the government to issue National Security Letters demanding customer records, more than 200,000 have been issued to U.S. companies by the FBI. But the perpetual gag orders that accompany them are rarely challenged by the ISPs and other recipients served with such letters.

In December 2010 in a letter (.pdf) from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the FBI asserted that in February 2009 it began telling recipients they had a right to challenge the built-in gag order that prevents them from disclosing to anyone, including customers, that the government is seeking customer records. That policy was mandated by a 2008 appellate court decision, which found that the never-ending, hard-to-challenge gag order was unconstitutional.

Holder noted, however, that in the year and 10 months since the FBI started notifying recipients of this right, only a small handful had asserted that right.

“Thus far, there have been only four challenges to the non-disclosure requirement,” Holder wrote, “and in two of the challenges, the FBI permitted the recipient to disclose the fact that an NSL was received.”
NSLs are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more.

NSLs are a powerful tool because they do not require court approval, and they come with a built-in gag order. An FBI agent looking into a possible anti-terrorism case can essentially self-issue the NSL to a credit bureau, ISP or phone company with only the sign-off of the Special Agent in Charge of their office. The FBI has to merely assert that the information is “relevant” to an investigation.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/


Senator seeks DOJ cellphone tracking data.

U.S. Senator Al Franken has in a letter asked the Department of Justice for information on its practices in requesting location information from wireless carriers, following reports that law enforcement agencies are requesting such information sometimes without warrants.

Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, said he was concerned about reports that after a Supreme Court decision on tracking using GPS devices, state and local law enforcement agencies may be requesting the location records of individuals directly from their wireless carriers instead of tracking individuals through GPS devices installed on vehicles, according to a copy of the letter on the website of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Supreme Court ruled in January that the use of GPS devices to track individuals amounted to a search and required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches.

"I am eager to learn about how frequently the Department requests location information and what legal standard the Department believes it must meet to obtain it," Franken said in the letter addressed to attorney general Eric Holder which is dated May 10. Franken also wants to know how the Department may have changed its practices after the Supreme Court decision.

Congressman Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, sent last Thursday a letter to nine major wireless carriers, including AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, asking them about their policies and practices for sharing their customers' mobile phone information with law enforcement agencies, including whether they consider if court warrants have been obtained. Markey also asked if the carriers accepted payments and other forms of compensation in exchange for the information provided.

The tracking of cellphones by law enforcement, once used mainly by federal agents, is widely used as a surveillance tool by local police officials, who often use it with "little or no court oversight," The New York Times reported in March. The carriers charged for the information, the newspaper added.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227077/Senator_seeks_DOJ_cellphone_tracking_data?taxonomyId=17