Daily Archives: June 8, 2017

If Russia and NATO Went to War Would It Go Nuclear (And Kill Millions)? – The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted: June 8, 2017 at 10:52 pm

A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries.

One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle. Another possibility would be to threaten a nuclear option, a scenario which seems unlikely if not completely unrealistic in light of the U.S. strategy to decrease nuclear arsenals and discourage the prospect of using nuclear weapons, the study finds.

A third and final option, the report mentions, would simply be to concede the Baltic states and immerse the alliance into a much more intense Cold War posture. Such an option would naturally not be welcomed by many of the residents of these states and would, without question, leave the NATO alliance weakened if not partially fractured.

How much of a threat do Russia's emerging5th-generationstealth fighter, nuclear arsenal, high-tech air defenses, anti-satellite weapons, conventional army and submarines pose to NATO and the U.S.?

Current tensions between Russia and NATO are leading many to carefully assess this question and examine the current state of weaponry and technological sophistication of the Russian military -- with a mind to better understanding the extent of the kinds of threats they may pose.

Naturally, Russias military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the pace of Russia's current military modernization and the relative condition of the former Cold War military giants forces, platforms and weaponry.

Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however some examinations of Russias current military reveals questions about its current ability to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement.

Nevertheless, Russia continues to make military advances and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's force posture in Eastern Europe regarding whether it is significant enough to deter Russia from a possible invasion of Eastern Europe.

Also, Russias economic pressures have not slowed the countries commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the countrys military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

While the former Cold War giants territories and outer most borders are sizeably less than they were in the 1980s, Russias conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next generation platforms.

Russias conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, yet the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers.

The National Interesthas recently published a number of reports about the technological progress now being made by Russian military developers. The various write-ups include reporting on new Russian anti-satellite weapons, T-14 Armata tanks, air defenses and early plans for a hypersonic, 6th-generation fighter jet, among other things. Russia is unambiguously emphasizing military modernization and making substantial progress, the reports from The National Interest and other outlets indicate.

For instance, Russia hasapparently conducted a successful test launch of its Nudoldirect ascent anti-satellite missile, according toThe National Interest.

"This is the second test of the new weapon, which is capable of destroying satellites in space. The weapon was apparently launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility north of Moscow," the report from The National Interest writes.

In addition,The National Interests'Dave Majumdar reported that Russian Airborne Forces plan six armored companies equipped with newly modifiedT-72B3Mtanks. Over the next two years, those six companies will be expanded to battalion strength, the report states.

Russia is also reportedly developing a so-called "Terminator 3" tank support fighting vehicle.

During the Cold War, the Russian defense budget amounted to nearly half of the countrys overall expenditures.

Now, the countries military spending draws upon a smaller percentage of its national expenditure. However, despite these huge percentage differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian defense budget is climbing again. From 2006 to 2009, the Russian defense budget jumped from $25 billion up to $50 billion according to Business Insider and the 2013 defense budget is listed elsewhere at $90 billion.

Overall, the Russian conventional military during the Cold War in terms of sheer size was likely five times what it is today.

The Russian military had roughly 766,000 active front line personnel in 2013 and as many as 2.4 million reserve forces, according toglobalfirepower.com. During the Cold War, the Russian Army had as many as three to four million members.

Read more:
If Russia and NATO Went to War Would It Go Nuclear (And Kill Millions)? - The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on If Russia and NATO Went to War Would It Go Nuclear (And Kill Millions)? – The National Interest Online (blog)

Congressman proposes bill to strengthen US and NATO cyber abilities against Russia – SC Magazine

Posted: at 10:52 pm

Rep. Lou Correa introduced bill to protect U.S. and NATO allies from Russian cyberattacks.

Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., introduced a bill that seeks to improve America and its NATO allies' abilities to defend against Russian cyberattacks.

The "Enhanced Partner Cyber Capabilities Act" would direct the President to specifically develop offensive cyber capability strategies and information and method sharing with our NATO allies.

The act calls for the Department of Defense to update its cyberstrategy, draft strategy for offensive cyber capabilities, and authorize international cooperation by helping NATO partners improve their cyber capabilities.

The bill states the Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime is actively working to erode democratic systems of NATO member states including the U.S.

"World War III is raging right now in cyber space, Rep. Correa said. With the increased frequency of cyber-attacks executed by foreign advisories we must increase our investments into securing our networks.

Rep. Correa said his bill will help prevent advisories from engaging in the types of cyber-espionage we saw during the past election and that protecting our networks is vital to privacy and the health of our democracy.

If passed the bill calls for action no later than 180 days after the bill is enacted.

View post:
Congressman proposes bill to strengthen US and NATO cyber abilities against Russia - SC Magazine

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Congressman proposes bill to strengthen US and NATO cyber abilities against Russia – SC Magazine

EU Launches Own Defense Against Russia, Responding to Trump NATO Funding Comments – Newsweek

Posted: at 10:52 pm

The European Union launched a new defense fund Wednesday designed to alleviate funding concerns put forth by President Donald Trump and bolster the region against perceived Russian aggression.

The initiative, called the European Defense Fund, is headed by the European Commission, one of seven organizations that manage the EU, and is intended "to help member states spend taxpayer money efficiently, reduce duplications and get better value for money," according to a post featured onthe European Commission's official Twitter account. The decision comes after repeated demands by Trump that the U.S.'s European allies contribute more to Western military alliance NATO, which includes most of the EU and has undergone a major arms buildup in response to what it considers to be a growing regional threat by Russia.

Related:Putin Warns U.S.-Russia Nuclear War Would Leave No Survivors

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

An official statement by the European Commission detailed plans for the EU to provide$560 million for defense "development and acquisition" in 2019 and 2020, with that figure projected to reach more than $1 billion by 2020 and possibly expand to $5 billion per year in the years that follow.

"People across Europe are worried about their and their children's security. Complementing our cooperation with NATO, we need to do more and better ourselves. Today we are showing that we walk the talk," said Jyrki Katainen, European Commission Vice President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness, according to the statement. "The Fund will act as a catalyst for a strong European defense industry which develops cutting-edge, fully interoperable technologies and equipment. Member states will remain in the driving seat, get better value for their moneyand ultimately see their influence increased."

European Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen holds a news conference on the European Defense Action Plan in Brussels, Belgium November 30, 2016. The European Commission launched the European Defense Fund in response to criticisms by President Donald Trump of NATO members' financial contributions to regional defense and what EU and NATO perceive as a growing military threat posed by Russia, June 7, 2017. Eric Vidal/Reuters

"Europe must become a security provider.The fund will support collaborative research in defense and the joint development of defense capabilities," Commissioner ElbietaBiekowskasaid in the statement. "It will, therefore, be a game-changer for the EU's strategic autonomy and the competitiveness of Europe's defense industry including the many SMEs and mid-cap companies forming the European defense supply chain."

The statement also outlined EU plans to allocate more than $100 million to the fund for research until 2019 with proposals coming next year to boost this figure to more than $562 million per year. Such a move would result in the EU becoming "one of the biggest defense research investors in Europe," according to the statement." Over $28 million has already been designated for research by the end of this year.

The inception of the fund can be traced back to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's 2016 state of the union speech, in which the former prime minister of Luxembourg proposed the creation of a European Defense Action Plan. Juncker reiterated his support for this concept Wednesday, echoing comments made last month by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She stated that the EU could no longer depend on the U.S. and the U.K., which voted last year to exit the EU, for defense cooperation.

"For too long we have relied too much on the military power of others," Juncker said Wednesday, according to Deutsche Welle. "We must now seize the moment to take charge of our own security. We owe this to our fellow Europeans."

Along with the U.S., a number of European nations have accused Russia of interfering in foreign politics and of threatening regional stability with its military. Since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from neighboring Ukraine in 2014, NATO and Russia have undergone dueling military buildups with each faction accusing the other of crossing lines that could instigate a conflict. Russia has defended its 2014 move by arguing political upheaval in Ukraine threatened the sizeable ethnic Russian community in Crimea, but both Russia and NATO forces have since sent tens of thousands of troops along with nuclear-capable missiles and other armaments to their mutual borders.

Analysts have predicted that the European Defense Fund may be a precursor to a more comprehensive European defense union that would operate alongside NATO. While the union would not likely constitute a unified, pan-European military force, it would reportedly focus on further integrating the defense infrastructure of the EU's 28 member states separate from the U.S.-dominated NATO.

"EU progress on this front in recent months has focused on establishing an EU defense fund and aiming to centralize procurement strategy. A possible future defense union would go furtherit could necessitate a joint, centralized defense industrial strategy, sharing of member state 'strategic' defense assets, and perhaps even a level of autonomy from NATO," Aarti Shankar, political analyst at U.K.-based liberal think tank Open Europe, told CNBC via email.

In a separate development from Wednesday's launch of the European Defense Fund, the U.S. announced that same day that it would partner with 23 other nations to hold a massive military exercise in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania next month. The U.S.'s European Command said that this year's "Saber Guardian" exercises would be "larger in both scale and scope" than previous drills held annually since 2013, according to Reuters. Later this summer, Russia is preparing its own large-scale, multinational military drills called Zapad, or "West," which will simulate a NATO invasion.

The rest is here:
EU Launches Own Defense Against Russia, Responding to Trump NATO Funding Comments - Newsweek

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on EU Launches Own Defense Against Russia, Responding to Trump NATO Funding Comments – Newsweek

Trump’s NATO comments paying off as Canada vows to increase military spending – GOPUSA

Posted: at 10:52 pm

TORONTO Canadas defense chief announced Wednesday that the country plans to sharply increase its military budget following pressure from the Trump administration to bolster spending.

Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said military spending will grow 70 percent to reach $32.7 billion Canadian ($24.1 billion) in a decade. That means Canada would spend about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product on defense by 2026-27, up from about 1.2 percent now.

U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that NATOs member countries increase their spending on defense forces. The U.S. accounts for more than 70 percent of all NATO military spending. Only Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland now meet the NATO goal of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said he was heartened by Canadian policy.

The United States welcomes Canadas marked increase in investment in their military and their continued commitment to a strong defense relationship with the United States and NATO, Mattis said in a statement.

This new defense policy demonstrates Canadian resolve to build additional military capacity and a more capable fighting force. In light of todays security challenges around the world, its critical for Canadas moral voice to be supported by the hard power of a strong military.

Sajjan said the added money is designed to make sure Canada is a reliable and credible partner.

The plan calls for 5,000 additional military personnel, 15 new warships and 88 new fighter jets, the latter up from a planned 65 announced by the previous government.

If were serious about our role in the world, we must be serious about funding our military, Sajjan said. And we are.

Canadian Transport Minister Marc Garneau called it a sovereign decision by his government. The announcement comes a day after Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada would increase military spending because Canada can no longer rely on Washington for global leadership.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he was pleased with Canadas move.

I warmly welcome Canadas new defense policy and the major planned investments, Stoltenberg said in a statement. This new policy affirms Canadas unwavering commitment to NATO and will ensure Canada has the armed forces and key capabilities that the Alliance needs.

Canada has about 800 military personnel in the international mission against the Islamic State group, but removed its fighter jets after Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus Liberal Party government was elected in late 2015. Canada also has about 200 troops in the Ukraine and 220 in Poland.

Associated Press writers Lolita Baldor in Washington and Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.

2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

-

This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]

Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)

Original post:
Trump's NATO comments paying off as Canada vows to increase military spending - GOPUSA

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump’s NATO comments paying off as Canada vows to increase military spending – GOPUSA

NSA Reneges on Promise to Tell Congress How Many Innocent Americans it Spies On – EFF

Posted: at 10:52 pm

Lawmakers should know how the laws they pass impact their constituents. Thats especially true when the law would reauthorize a vast Internet and telephone spying program that collects information about millions of law-abiding Americans.

But thats exactly what the Intelligence Community wants Congress to do when it considers reauthorizing a sweeping electronic surveillance authority under the expiring Section 702, as enacted by the FISA Amendments Act, before the end of the year.

Intelligence officials have been promising Congress they would provide lawmakers with an estimate of the number of American communications that are collected under Section 702. That estimate is a critical piece of information for lawmakers to have as they consider whether and how to reauthorize and reform the warrantless Internet surveillance of millions of innocent Americans in the coming months.

But during a hearing on Section 702 in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, despite previous assurances, said he wont be providing that estimate out of national security and, ironically, privacy concerns.

He told lawmakers it is infeasible to generate an exact, accurate, meaningful, and responsive methodology that can count how often a U.S. persons communications may be incidentally collected under Section 702. To do so would require diverting NSA analysts attention away from their current work to conduct additional significant research to determine whether the communications collected under Section 702 are American. I would be asking trained NSA analysts to conduct intense identity verification research on potential U.S. persons who are not targets of an investigation, he said. From a privacy and civil liberties perspective, I find this unpalatable.

From a privacy and civil liberties perspective, we find it unpalatable that the Intelligence Community would ask Congress to reauthorize a controversial surveillance program without first following through on the promisereiterated by Coats as recently as earlier this yearto provide some much needed information about how the program impacts Americans. To do so supposedly in the name of privacy concerns is even worse.

It should go without saying: if the Intelligence Community is truly worried about the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, officials will take the looming Section 702 sunset as an opportunity to give lawmakers the information they need to have an informed and meaningful debate about how government spying programs impact Americans privacy.

Privacy advocate Sen. Ron Wyden criticized DNI Coats for his backtracking, calling his reversal a very, very damaging position to stake out. He warned, Were going to battle it out in the course of this, because there are a lot of Americans that share our view that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive.

And that battle is already happening. With Congress debate over Section 702 reauthorization heating up, now is the time to tell your representatives in Congress to let this warrantless spying authority lapse.

Take Action

Continue reading here:
NSA Reneges on Promise to Tell Congress How Many Innocent Americans it Spies On - EFF

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA Reneges on Promise to Tell Congress How Many Innocent Americans it Spies On – EFF

NSA director explains unmasking – Washington Post

Posted: at 10:52 pm


Washington Post
NSA director explains unmasking
Washington Post
June 7, 2017 11:18 AM EDT - NSA director Mike Rogers explained the limited process of revealing the identity of Americans subject to incidental surveillance, during a hearing Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 7 at the Capitol. (Reuters ...

Read the original post:
NSA director explains unmasking - Washington Post

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA director explains unmasking – Washington Post

50 Years Ago: NSA’s Deadliest Day – Observer

Posted: at 10:52 pm


Observer
50 Years Ago: NSA's Deadliest Day
Observer
The USS Liberty was owned and operated by the U.S. Navy, which euphemistically referred to her as one of its Technical Research Ships, but she really worked for NSA. A converted World War Two freighter, the Liberty was barely a warship, possessing ...

and more »

See the rest here:
50 Years Ago: NSA's Deadliest Day - Observer

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on 50 Years Ago: NSA’s Deadliest Day – Observer

NSA ‘leaker’ feared feds would ‘make her disappear’: mom – New York Post

Posted: at 10:52 pm


New York Post
NSA 'leaker' feared feds would 'make her disappear': mom
New York Post
The Air Force veteran accused of leaking classified NSA documents was terrified that the federal agents who arrested her over the weekend were going to make her disappear, according to her mother. Her words to me was that she was scared she was ...
Here's what we know about the alleged NSA leaker's military recordAirForceTimes.com

all 32 news articles »

The rest is here:
NSA 'leaker' feared feds would 'make her disappear': mom - New York Post

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA ‘leaker’ feared feds would ‘make her disappear’: mom – New York Post

Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘Carpenter v. United States,’ the Fourth Amendment historical cell-site case – Washington Post

Posted: at 10:51 pm

Therewas enormously important Fourth Amendment news from the Supreme Court on Monday: The justices agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuits decision in Carpenter v. United States, one of the long-pending cases on whether the Fourth Amendment protects government access to historical cell-site records.

This is a momentous development, I think. Its not an exaggeration to say that the future of surveillance law hinges on how the Supreme Court rules in the case. Let me say a bit about the case, the issues it will decide and why it matters.

I. The Facts of the Case

Carpenter involves a string of armed robberies that occurred over a two-year period. A group of men (at least five of them) would go into cellphone stores armed with guns, order the customers and employees to the back, and steal the phones. Carpenter was the lead organizer of the conspiracy, and he often supplied the guns, acted as a lookout and would signal when each robbery was to begin.

One of Carpenters conspirators confessed to the crime and gave the government his cellphone number and the numbers of the other conspirators (16 numbers total). The government applied for three different court orders for the cell-site records associated with those numbers, which included Carpenters number. Specifically, the orders sought cell site information for Carpenters phone at call origination and at call termination for incoming and outgoing calls. The government obtained the orders under the Stored Communications Act. They complied with the statute, but the statute requires only reasonable suspicion and not probable cause.

The order that covered Carpenter was directed at his cellphone provider MetroPCS. MetroPCS produced 127 days of historical cell-site records. (Sprint produced another seven days of historical cell-site records for Carpenters phone from a time window when he was roaming and Sprint picked up his service instead of MetroPCS.) Together with the orders obtained, the records showed that that the phones of the alleged conspirators were within distances ranging from a half-mile up to two miles of the robberies at the time they occurred. Specifically, Carpenters phone was shown to be in communication with cell towers near four robberies over a five-month window.

II. The Legal Issues

Here is how counsel for the petitioner framed the question presented:

Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

And heres how the United States redrafted the question presented in its brief in opposition:

Whether the governments acquisition, pursuant to a court order issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703(d), of historical cell-site records created and maintained by a cellular-service provider violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the individual customer to whom the records pertain.

I gather, then, that the case will consider two distinct questions. First, is the collection of the records a Fourth Amendment search? And second, if it is a search, is it a search that requires a warrant?

Notably, neither side sought review of whether the good-faith exception applies if the answer to both of these questions is yes. The parties are asking only for a ruling on the merits, with any remedies decision bifurcated for review on remand if the Supreme Court reverses.

III. Why The Case Matters

The Carpenter case is tremendously important, I think. The structure of modern surveillance law is built on the idea that the contents of communications receive Fourth Amendment protection but that non-content metadata records about communications, and other third-party business records do not. That has been the rule since the 19th century for postal letters, and it has been the rule since 1979 for phone calls. Carpenter will help determine if that basic rule framework will remain, or if the Supreme Court will amend it somewhat or even dramatically change it.

Part of the importance of the case is that its not just about cell-site records. Although the case is formally about cell-site records, its really about where to draw lines in terms of what network surveillance triggers the Fourth Amendment and how the Fourth Amendment applies. The justices cant answer how the Fourth Amendment applies to cell-site records without providing a framework for how the Fourth Amendment applies to many other forms of surveillance, such as visual surveillance, obtaining traditional phone records, obtaining e-mail transactional records, obtaining credit card records and the like.

For example, readers will recall the debate over the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. Among the issues likely to be pressed in Carpenter is whether the justices should adopt or reject the mosaic theory. Note that the question presented focuses on the fact that the records covered 172 days. Should the length covered by the records matter? Is evidence collection for a short time window no search that becomes a search because the records spanned a long time window?

Plus, remember that the justices will have two questions: what a search is, and when searches are reasonable. Most will focus on the first question, but note that the two issues go together. As I explained here, the broader the court interprets search, the more pressure there is to water down reasonableness. The narrower the definition of search, the stronger the reasonableness standard tends to be. This creates some interesting dynamics. For example, you might get a ruling that there is no search but that retains the traditional default warrant rule for searches. On the other hand, you might get a ruling that a search occurred but that authorizes a new category of warrantless surveillance. This is just speculation, of course, but I suspect the briefing will urge major doctrinal innovations on both questions.

IV. Why Did the Justices Take the Case?

Some will speculate that the Supreme Court would have taken the case only if it were going to reverse. I have no idea how the court will rule, but I tend to doubt that. If I had to guess, I would guess that the court took these cases because theyre really important. The lower court rulings are based on the third-party doctrine, and none of the current justices were on the court the last time the justices decided a case on the third-party doctrine. Its pretty sensible to have the current Supreme Court weigh in.

As it happens, I think the third-party doctrine is essential to technological surveillance in a digital age. As I see it, the doctrine is needed to maintain the essential balance on which Fourth Amendment law has been built and on which it evolves in response to new technology. Prominent alternatives, like the mosaic theory, strike me as a dead end. But it makes a lot of sense for the justices to review these cases and decide whether they agree and if not, identify what new framework should replace it.

V. Lots of Blogging Ahead

Finally, Ill probably be doing a lot of carpentry (that is, blogging about the issues raised in Carpenter) over the next few months. A lot of my academic work in the past decade has been about issues that touch on the case, so it will be really fun to see what the justices do.

Continue reading here:
Supreme Court agrees to hear 'Carpenter v. United States,' the Fourth Amendment historical cell-site case - Washington Post

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘Carpenter v. United States,’ the Fourth Amendment historical cell-site case – Washington Post

Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say Real-Time Cellphone Location Tracking Not A Fourth Amendment Issue – Techdirt

Posted: at 10:51 pm

The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court is the latest to weigh in on cell site location info. It joins every other circuit that has handled the issue in deciding the gathering of cellphone GPS data by law enforcement is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

This decision [PDF] isn't too surprising considering the court reached the same conclusion last year in a similar case. The difference between the two is the latest case deals with real-time collection of GPS data, rather than historical GPS records. But that's the only difference. The Appeals Court believes the same holds true for real-time location info, although it cites something other than 1979's Smith v. Maryland in its analysis.

[T]he district court heldand we affirm, holding that the governments detection of Montai Rileys whereabouts in this case, which included tracking Rileys real-time GPS location data for approximately seven hours preceding his arrest, did not amount to a Fourth Amendment search under our precedent in United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 781 (6th Cir. 2012). The government used Rileys GPS location data to learn that Riley was hiding out at the Airport Inn in Memphis, Tennesseebut only after inquiring of the front-desk clerk did the government ascertain Rileys specific room number in order to arrest him. The GPS tracking thus provided no greater insight into Rileys whereabouts than what Riley exposed to public view as he traveled along public thoroughfares, id. at 774, to the hotel lobby. Therefore, under Skinner, Riley has no reasonable expectation of privacy against such tracking, and the district court properly denied Rileys motion to suppress evidence found upon Rileys arrest.

While tracking a robbery suspect, law enforcement obtained an order demanding AT&T hand over location data as soon as it was collected.

The court order compelled disclosure of call metadata such as inbound and outbound phone numbers and cell-site location (CSL) data, as well as real-time tracking or pinging of the latitude and longitude coordinates of Rileys phone. Specifically, the order required AT&T to disclose the following, potentially for two months, until August 26, 2015:

16. Precision location of mobile device (GPS Location) such that service provider shall initiate a signal to determine the location of the subjects mobile device on the service providers network or with such other reference points as may be reasonable [sic] available and a [sic] such intervals and times as directed by State Task Force Investigators and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshal Service.

The court goes on to note that the location records submitted as evidence do not show whether this collection of info was triggered by AT&T or by the cellphone's owner.

No evidence of record indicates whether Rileys phone automatically transmitted its GPS coordinates to AT&T (and if so, whether on a continuous basis or otherwise) or whether AT&T affirmatively sent a signal to Rileys phone to cause it to send AT&T its GPS coordinates.

This should have been a warning flag. It's one thing to collect this info as it comes in. If AT&T is pinging the phone to generate GPS coordinates, AT&T is essentially performing a search on behalf of the government. That should make a difference in this case, as it shifts it from being about a collection of third-party records to an affirmative gathering of records by the government, using AT&T as a third-party stand-in to work around warrant requirements. (Not that case law is settled for GPS tracking, but still)

But it doesn't. The court goes on to say it doesn't matter because the records were gathered by a third party and they all dealt with the movement of an individual in a public area (the motel where he was arrested). That's why the court cites the Skinner decision, rather than relying exclusively on Smith v. Maryland.

In Skinner, we held that location data emitted by a voluntarily procured cell phone could not be subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if the cell-phone user had no reason to expect that the government would compel the service provider to disclose those data. Id. at 779. There, because the defendants movements could have been observed by any member of the public, ibid., we held that it could not possibly be a Fourth Amendment violation for law-enforcement officers to monitor those movements by using cell-phone location data just because such electronic monitoring was more efficient than relying on visual surveillance alone.

But it then goes on to reach a conclusion which seems to contradict the evidence provided.

Using seven hours of GPS location data to determine an individuals location (or a cell phones location), so long as the tracking does not reveal movements within the home (or hotel room), does not cross the sacred threshold of the home, and thus cannot amount to a Fourth Amendment search. After all, the tracking in Knotts revealed the location of the cabin to which the criminal suspects had traveledbut the tracking in Knotts was not a search because it revealed no information about the interior of the cabin itself. Likewise here, the tracking revealed only that Riley had traveled to the Airport Inn, not which room (if any) the phone was in at the time of the tracking.

The lack of location info particularity should have worked against the government's argument. The court even admits in a footnote the government had no idea where exactly the suspect was located -- only a general idea that he was likely in a publicly-accessible building.

When viewed on a map, the majority of these coordinates are scattered within the perimeter of the Airport Inn, but with insufficient precisioneven if the Airport Inn were only one story tallto reveal which room, if any, the phone was in at the time of each ping.

So, it could be argued the government did track the suspect's "movements within a hotel room," which would put this back in Fourth Amendment territory. But the court never attempts to reconcile these contradictory statements and instead continues to use both the motel's accessibility and the coarse location info as an argument against potential Fourth Amendment violations.

That Riley was arrested in a motel is of no moment, for the government learned no more about Rileys whereabouts from tracking his cell-phone GPS data than what Riley exposed to public view by traveling to the motel lobby along public thoroughfares, Skinner, 690 F.3d at 774even if Riley meant to keep his location a secret, one cannot expect privacy in ones public movements.

Certainly the arrest was "no moment," but the tracking that occurred once he was inside the building should have been given more consideration. The fact that law enforcement can obtain real-time location tracking information definitely needs to be examined more closely, especially when there's ample evidence law enforcement has effectively backdated orders like these to cover up use of more intrusive technology like Stingray devices.

See the article here:
Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say Real-Time Cellphone Location Tracking Not A Fourth Amendment Issue - Techdirt

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say Real-Time Cellphone Location Tracking Not A Fourth Amendment Issue – Techdirt