Malte Spitz: Your phone company is watching. B. This interesting TED talk gives insight into. 10-1259 United States v. Jones (01/23/2012) B. This case is about the warrantless use of a. Tracking. B. This paper discusses the positive and. Telecommunications Information Privacy Code. This code applies specific rules to telecommunications agencies to better ensure the protection of individual privacy. The code addresses the telecommunications information collected, held, used, and disclosed by telecommunications agencies. For telecommunications agencies the code takes the place of the information privacy principles. Telecommunications Information Privacy Code 2003 including Amendment No 3 (consolidated edition as at 1 August 2004).
(Amendment No 2 (Temporary) operated over the period 1 November 2003 to 31 July 2004 and is set out in an appendix. Amendment No 1 (Temporary) was revoked before it ever commenced). Telecommunications Information Privacy Code - general information. B. This is the site for the office of the. Legal Affairs. July|August 2003 Your Cellphone is a Homing Device Don't want the government to know where you are? Throw away your cell, stop taking the subway, and pay the toll in cash. By Brendan I. Koerner IF YOU PURCHASED A NEW CELLPHONE over the past 18 months or so, odds are that one of the features listed in small print on the side of the box was "E911 capable. " Or, as in the case of my latest Motorola, "Location technology for piece [sic] of mind. " What your salesman probably failed to tell you—and may not even realize—is that an E911-capable phone can give your wireless carrier continual updates on your location. So what's preventing them from doing so, at the behest of either direct marketers or, perhaps more chillingly, the police?
GPS tracking is already a staple of workplace surveillance, especially for those not bound to desks. The difference between that and E911 tracking is the nature of the relationship between the tracker and the trackee. The 2002 Washington State case State v. B. This is a slightly older article from 2003. Jones v. US: GPS Surveillance in the eyes of the US Supreme Court « Association of Commonwealth Criminal Lawyers. B. This is one of the many articles on Apples. Apple Officially Responds to Location Tracking Controversy. Apple is out with a detailed statement explaining how the company uses location data, an issue that has been at the forefront since last week when researchers revealed that the iPhone includes a hidden file that stores latitude, longitude and timestamps. The statement, which takes the form of ten questions and answers, leads with the company saying that “Apple is not tracking the location of your iPhone.
Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so,” sentiments that were echoed in an email from Steve Jobs released earlier in the week. That said, the company does go on to acknowledge two “bugs” — one relating to how much data the phone stores (“up to a year's worth”) from Wi-Fi hotspots and cell tower triangulation, and another that continues to update this information even when a user turns Location Services off. So what exactly is Apple doing then? Supreme Court Ruling on Warrantless GPS Vehicle Tracking.
On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its unanimous decision in United States v. Antoine Jones (No. 10-1259), a case addressing the constitutional privacy rights of American citizens in the face of modern tracking systems based on GPS and other technologies. The Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle in order to monitor its movements. In this case, the FBI and District of Columbia police affixed a hidden GPS device to the vehicle of suspected drug dealer Antoine Jones in a public parking lot. The Court was expected to decide on two questions: Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on Jones's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and Whether the government violated Jones's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching the GPS tracking device to his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.
Learn more about United States v. B. The article attached is a summary of the US. In the GPS Case, Issues of Privacy and Technology. B. This is an article by a New York University.