The national debate over privacy rights almost always focuses on the threat of increased government surveillance on private citizens -- everything from wiretapping to net neutrality have been argued back and forth for years now. Rarely, however, has the conversation touched upon already existing government surveillance and its potential for domestic spying. That may be about to change.
Technology used to track the sources of 911 calls placed from cell phones is now being used in some countries to track suspected terrorists. According to a recent Fox News report, Location Intelligence or LOCINT allows investigators to locate a cell phone within 50 meters, so authorities can follow a suspect's "digital footprint"...as long as they keep their phone on.
LOCINT technology is owned by the Berwyn, Pennsylvania-based TruePosition Corporation and can be used to build what its inventors describe as a "geo-fence," a constantly shifting digital border where cellular devices become open to examination. TruePosition feels its technology can become a vital tool in the War on Terror, at least in countries where it is legal to use it for those means.
"When you establish a geo-fence, anytime a mobile device enters the territory, our system will be alerted and provide a message to the customer," Victor Li, TruePosition's Vice President of Marketing told Fox News. "We realize that this has a lot of value to law enforcement agencies outside of search and rescue missions. It gives rise to a whole host of new solutions for national security."
The Constitution prohibits technology like LOCINT from being used unchecked, requiring law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant beforehand.
"Where federal agents and prosecutors seek to obtain such information on a prospective basis, the Justice Department's Criminal Division recommends that they obtain a warrant based on probable cause," DOJ spokesman Ian McCaleb told Fox News. Whether or not you agree with McCaleb, it remains that this can be a disorienting thing to hear from a Justice Department official coming off of 8 years of the Bushian approach to civil liberties.
TruePosition uses a platform called Uplink Time Difference of Arrival (U-TDOA) to track its subjects. U-TDOA uses cell phone towers to "triangulate" any given phone's location, following suspects into areas that even GPS technology can't reach.
"GPS doesn't work well in urban areas and it works very poorly in indoor environments," Li told Fox News. "When life is at stake and every minute counts, GPS is just not the right technology."
Li's point does not go unappreciated, but the reasoning behind it can be troubling. When debating the pros and cons of torturing suspected terrorists, the "Ticking Time Bomb Theory" is almost always brought up. Some base the crux of their argument upon it, while others look at it as little more than a false hypothetical, a good old fashioned scare tactic. Whatever side of the debate you may fall on, it is clear that there are no easy answers when the question involves surrendering privacy rights.
The state of Kansas, for one, is firmly on the side of increased surveillance using cell phone technology. The Kansas House of Representatives recently passed a bill by a 118-1 vote requiring cell phone providers to cooperate with law enforcement officials during an emergency. If the bill passes the state Senate, Kansas would become the first state in the union to make the surveillance legal. Would a lawsuit before the Supreme Court involving a wrongly accused suspect being tracked via his or her cell phone be far behind the passage of such a law? Don't be too surprised if that's the case. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union are not likely to let such a law pass without a fight, a fight that is sure to cause much controversy.
According to the Fox News report, certain Asian-Pacific and Middle Eastern countries have already implemented the use of LOCINT in criminal investigations. Li describes the countries to Fox as being "extremely concerned with security." No one doubts that the United States is a nation "extremely concerned" with national security, but the U.S. has always been a nation that asks "At what cost?" A sense of security, real or imagined, that costs just a portion of the privacy rights we enjoy may be a price too high to pay.
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed
