Posts Tagged ‘Location Information’
Privacy, Security Cameras and Location Information
From the All Points Blog, April 10, 2009
Privacy, Security Cameras and Location Information
Bill Johnson sent on a newsletter that included a valuable article about privacy, security cameras and location information. I finally found a version on the Web. It’s titled: Surveillance of Public Spaces: A Privacy Issue? by Don Peppers & Martha Rogers, Ph.D. …
For full blog post: All Points Blog
For full text of article: Surveillance of Public Spaces, 1to1 Media
If this is of interest, check out the research of Torin Monahan at ASU on the social impact of surveillance technology:
Experiences of Surveillance Technologies in Gated Communities and Public Housing
The use of modern surveillance technologies to monitor public activities presents difficult challenges to policymakers and citizens, especially in a post-9/11 world. Central to the debate over surveillance technologies are the oftentimes conflicting goals of safeguarding democratic freedoms from criminal or terrorist threats and from technological intrusion. Focusing specifically on surveillance technologies in public and semi-public places of residence, this project will make an empirical contribution to this ongoing debate by documenting experiences of surveillance technologies. This project will explore the use of modern surveillance technologies(specifically closed circuit television (CCTV) systems) in two very different places of dwelling and social interaction: gated communities and low-income public housing. Research sites will include 3 gated communities and 3 public housing complexes in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Throughout 12 months of field research, 90 interviews will be conducted to identify differences in public experiences of video surveillance across and within these settings.
The guiding questions are 1) what meanings do people attribute to surveillance technologies in places of residence?, and 2) how do people come to understand others through the presence of surveillance technologies? The emphasis of this study will be to identify patterns in experiences of surveillance technologies. Secondary attention will be given to the actual design and distribution of surveillance systems in order to determine how they vary across spaces and whether or not perceptions and behaviors vary according to the types of systems present. …
For full text, link here.
Interested in learning more? Check out the book – Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life
Federal Court Constitution Protects Stored Cell Phone Location Information
A federal court ruled September 10th that stored cell phone location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court said the government needed a warrant, based on probable cause, in order to gain access to stored cell phone location information. Other courts have required probable cause for law enforcement access to real-time cell phone location information; however, this decision is particularly important because it extends the probable cause requirement to stored location information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, joined by CDT, ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania, had argued for the warrant requirement that the court adopted in an amicus curiae brief filed in July. September 11, 2008
Federal Court Decision [PDF], September 10, 2008: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/lenihanorder.pdf
Amicus Brief in the Case [PDF], July 31, 2008: http://www.cdt.org/security/20080731_lenihan_amicus.pdf
Source: Center for Democracy & Technology, September 11, 2008
Location Based Services – Patent Infringement and Privacy
Location Privacy Patent
On May 16, 2008, a California District Court found Sprint Nextel Corporation liable for infringement of two patents to the tune of $2.78 million in damages. The patents, owned by intellectual property-holding company Enovsys LCC, relate to a system designed to protect the disclosure of a cell phone’s precise location.
Source: GPS World (May 21, 2008)
Location-Based Services Privacy Best Practices
On a related note, CITA – the Wireless Association announced its Best Practices and Guidelines for Location-Based Services (LBS), which encourages Location-Based Service (LBS) Providers to promote and protect customers’ location privacy. Specifically, these guidelines focus on user notice and consent:
LBS Providers must inform users about how their location information will be used, disclosed and protected so that a user can make an informed decision whether or not to use the LBS or authorize disclosure; [and,]
[O]nce a user has chosen to use an LBS, or authorized the disclosure of location information, he or she should have choices as to when or whether location information will be disclosed to third parties and should have the ability to revoke any such authorization.
While these guidelines provide examples of how the above two tasks might be accomplished, they unfortunately provide almost no discussion of the physical, technical, and administrative safegaurds needed once this data is collected. The possible privacy impact of data of long-term retention and storage is not discussed.
Location Tracking
Peter Batty, in his blog geothought (June 14, 2007), asked hypothetically:
As location tracking becomes increasingly pervasive, in particular through location aware phones, defining appropriate policies and law in the area of privacy will be very important. For example, if you are in a car accident, should the police and/or your insurance company be able to access information from your phone (or the GPS system in your car) which could show them whether you were speeding or not? There are a lot of complex issues in this area, with no easy answers.
Kevin Pomfret, in his post But Do You Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy With Your Cell Phone? (June 25, 2007), replies:
There have been a number of recent cases involving the attempted use by the government to use the specific and articulable facts standard in the Stored Communications Act to collect spatial data associated with electronic transmissions. …Specifically, the government has tried to use Section 2703(c) to collect “a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or a customer of such service”. In [these] three instances the government was attempting to use the reasonable grounds standard under Section 2703(d) of the Act in order to obtain cell site data to track a customer’s location in real or near real time rather than the higher probable cause standard that would be required to obtain approval to use a more standard tracking device to monitor a suspect’s movements. However, in each case the court found that the government needed to have probable cause in order to compel disclosure of the cell tower data.
Visit Kevin’s Spatial Law blog for more analysis on this topic!
