Bill Named After Murdered Girl Fails On House Floor - Polidicks

In a particularly surprising and searing defeat, House lawmakers voted down a bill Monday night that would have compelled cell phone companies to release the location information of phones in emergency situations. Named after an 18-year-old woman who was abducted from a Target parking lot in 2007 and found days later murdered, the “Kelsey Smith Act” would allow law enforcement agencies to work with telecommunications companies to locate people in situations similar to Kelsey’s. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kelsey-smith-act_us_57436813e4b00e09e89fc813?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000595[/url] Mad mad world

Honestly...this is a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from using "emergency situations" as an excuse to obtain info. If there is a legit case in which this information is needed, it should be fairly easy to obtain a warrant.

In all the good that this bill offers, one thing that must be realized that having a power accessible is enough to exploit it. Even though it would probably require probable cause in terms of ones safety. It opens a backdoor for others to exploit it. May they be government or non-government entities.

[QUOTE=MR-X;50380403]Honestly...this is a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from using "emergency situations" as an excuse to obtain info. If there is a legit case in which this information is needed, it should be fairly easy to obtain a warrant.[/QUOTE] Its good that its not a federal law. It does not need to be federal law. States can handle this on their own. We can already ping phones in emergency situations- aka when someone's life is in danger- without a warrant where I am.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50380443]Its good that its not a federal law. It does not need to be federal law. States can handle this on their own. We can already ping phones in emergency situations- aka when someone's life is in danger- without a warrant where I am.[/QUOTE] actually it would be better if it were a federal law instead of a patchwork of standards. i don't really know if states have the legal authority to compel telecoms like this, as they don't reside in 1 state

The telecomms providers can't place it any more accurately than the nearest cell tower, which can put it in a radius up to 40 miles (Typically 22 though). At least in the UK, this information is also delayed by 24h. Even if it were present info, I doubt it'd do much to help in most relevant cases.

[QUOTE=MR-X;50380403]Honestly...this is a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from using "emergency situations" as an excuse to obtain info. If there is a legit case in which this information is needed, it should be fairly easy to obtain a warrant.[/QUOTE] Except it wasn't and a girl was raped and murdered in one of the worst ways you can go? The only possible way they could have gotten there in time to save her is if they had an immediate channel to ping the phone, your post just makes not a single bit of logical sense. Whether you feel that privacy is more important to safety is an entirely different subject but the only way anyone had a chance to save this girl would have been if they could immediately obtain her location. [QUOTE=the article]But Kelsey’s family has pointed out previously that it took nearly four days for her cell phone provider to turn over location information. Once they did turn it over, it took roughly 45 minutes to find Kelsey dead.[/QUOTE] Even with the location information, it took 45 minutes to find her. It's really tough to say if that would have been enough time to save her life but it's so far beyond unrealistic to think that factoring in the time of obtaining a warrant would still give them a chance. It's clear that a bill allowing immediate warrantless access to ping people's cell location is a dangerous topic to tread, but there's got to be at least a few scenarios where we should be able to agree on it being fine. I think we can safely find a way to cover scenarios where a girl who lives with her family after just graduating highschool disappears with her car abandoned and full of the things she bought after just calling her family without giving the government the ability to conduct warrant-less location searches for nefarious purposes

This reminds me of a person who went missing, their family tried to get cell phone records but were denied. Police also tried to get them, but were also denied, the situation didn't meet the standards required for a warrant. Nearly a week later a family member noticed something off the side of the road and pulled over to investigate. As he looked into the ditch, he saw the missing person's vehicle upside-down with the person trapped inside. Somehow, they were alive and survived the incident, they only had minor injuries but coudln't free themselves from the wreckage. If they could get the cell phone data, they'd have been able to find her sooner.

They have this power in Australia but they can only use it in life or death situations.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50380590]The telecomms providers can't place it any more accurately than the nearest cell tower, which can put it in a radius up to 40 miles (Typically 22 though).[/QUOTE] The phone itself can pinpoint its location to within about a hundred feet or so, provided it has access to GPS satellites and enough battery power to respond to the signals. Telecoms can ping any phone on their network, regardless of the provider, to get GPS location. The infrastructure is there to locate any person carrying a smartphone down to within a hundred feet of their current location as it is, in near-as-makes-no-difference real time no less. If Google can use it to try to sell me cars through targeted web ads, if Radar Now can use it to tell me what the weather is doing where I happen to be, if Google Maps can use it to A: tell me where I'm going B: tell me where I am C: Tell me how fast I'm going/ETA, there's no reason that Verizon can't tell the authorities those same things as well.

-snip-

[QUOTE=AJ10017;50380736]you guys do know 911 operators fail to save 1 out of 5 people because they cant access their location right? they can only get the nearest cell tower, which is a huge area to cover. john oliver does a better job explaining it honestly [video]https://youtu.be/A-XlyB_QQYs[/video] specifically 2:09 onward[/QUOTE] That segment is about operators being able to locate you by your cell phone when you call, in this case she did not call 911. This is more about the police being able to legally request location from a provider when you haven't personally called 911 than the technology the operators have.

[QUOTE=AJ10017;50380736]you guys do know 911 operators fail to save 1 out of 5 people because they cant access their location right? they can only get the nearest cell tower, which is a huge area to cover. john oliver does a better job explaining it honestly [video]https://youtu.be/A-XlyB_QQYs[/video] specifically 2:09 onward[/QUOTE] this isnt the same subject, that video explains the issue where people cant willfully send their location to 911 using their cell phone because 911 centers have ancient tech, this thread is about law enforcement just pulling arbitrary locations without a warrant. edit: i got ninjad, owell

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50380776]Give this power to the US and somehow magically it'll be used for the "life or death" situation of "that guy has weed, lets arrest him". The federal government simply can't be trusted with yet more power.[/QUOTE] We shouldn't be taking their power away, we should be fixing them so they don't abuse it. Though I do totally agree, until then they shouldn't be given this sort of trust.

Why not just mandate a GPS emergency pinging system software when you type 911 onto your phone and have it continue to ping for one until the battery dies or you type in a personal code to deactivate it?

[QUOTE=The Duke;50380898]Why not just mandate a GPS emergency pinging system software when you type 911 onto your phone and have it continue to ping for one until the battery dies or you type in a personal code to deactivate it?[/QUOTE] So like, E911....

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50380912]So like, E911....[/QUOTE] Well, I suppose you are right, that basically is E911 . . . . . .

[QUOTE=Elspin;50380691] Even with the location information, it took 45 minutes to find her. It's really tough to say if that would have been enough time to save her life but it's so far beyond unrealistic to think that factoring in the time of obtaining a warrant would still give them a chance. It's clear that a bill allowing immediate warrantless access to ping people's cell location is a dangerous topic to tread, but there's got to be at least a few scenarios where we should be able to agree on it being fine. I think we can safely find a way to cover scenarios where a girl who lives with her family after just graduating highschool disappears with her car abandoned and full of the things she bought after just calling her family without giving the government the ability to conduct warrant-less location searches for nefarious purposes[/QUOTE] You say that, but find a house of Representatives that would ever write such a narrow bill, look how they couldn't even just shut down the NSA's dragnet, they had to write in loopholes and extensions, which have kept the program running

[QUOTE=MR-X;50380403]Honestly...this is a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from using "emergency situations" as an excuse to obtain info. If there is a legit case in which this information is needed, it should be fairly easy to obtain a warrant.[/QUOTE] Anyone can swear out a warrant on someone no problem if it's a certain crime. It takes just a few minutes. And a police officer can get one not much faster, but even easier

[QUOTE=Elspin;50380691]Except it wasn't and a girl was raped and murdered in one of the worst ways you can go? The only possible way they could have gotten there in time to save her is if they had an immediate channel to ping the phone, your post just makes not a single bit of logical sense. Whether you feel that privacy is more important to safety is an entirely different subject but the only way anyone had a chance to save this girl would have been if they could immediately obtain her location. Even with the location information, it took 45 minutes to find her. It's really tough to say if that would have been enough time to save her life but it's so far beyond unrealistic to think that factoring in the time of obtaining a warrant would still give them a chance. It's clear that a bill allowing immediate warrantless access to ping people's cell location is a dangerous topic to tread, but there's got to be at least a few scenarios where we should be able to agree on it being fine. I think we can safely find a way to cover scenarios where a girl who lives with her family after just graduating highschool disappears with her car abandoned and full of the things she bought after just calling her family without giving the government the ability to conduct warrant-less location searches for nefarious purposes[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry, my post makes perfect sense. They're trying to change the law and changed how LE gets information is important and the legislation that people make is important. This bill would FORCE companies to pass up information without legal documentation. This bill is a double edge sword and as sad as the case is, we shouldn't pass it though because of that alone. Even then..LE can still access the info without this bill..says it in the other article.. [quote]While current law does allow service providers to hand over location information to the authorities, it does not compel them to do so in cases of emergency. [/quote]. Plus even then most states already passed this law, leave it up to the states. It does not need to be a federal law.

[QUOTE=MR-X;50381438]Yeah sorry, my post makes perfect sense. They're trying to change the law and changed how LE gets information is important and the legislation that people make is important.[/QUOTE] Ironically, this quote does not make sense at all. The only thing I can make out of this is that you think your post makes sense (it doesn't) and that the law relating to police requisition of information is important, which is obvious and I already addressed. [QUOTE]This bill would FORCE companies to pass up information without legal documentation.[/QUOTE] There are many situations where officers are allowed to do things without legal documentation. If they hear screams for help coming from inside a nearby building, can smell drugs, etc. Sometimes, it makes sense. [QUOTE]This bill is a double edge sword and as sad as the case is, we shouldn't pass it though because of that alone.[/QUOTE] I already addressed that there is an issue of privacy vs security, but that can be mitigated in some extremely obvious cases ie dependants and extremely suspicious disappearances. [QUOTE]Even then..LE can still access the info without this bill..says it in the other article..[/QUOTE] Yes and if you'd read my post and the article you'd see that the problem is in an emergency you're dead. That shouldn't need to be explained twice. [QUOTE]Plus even then most states already passed this law, leave it up to the states. It does not need to be a federal law.[/QUOTE] There are many cases where it makes sense for a law to be handled by the states, but something that could be vital to your safety is absolutely not it.

Lot of fear mongering going on in this thread

There could be an opt-in version of this.

I just find it sad that when someone's life is in danger acting is red taped. Because of silly shit like privacy. If a life is in danger fuck the rules. Just act, could have saved a life like this 18 year old girl. But if it's not a life saving emergency I think you should go though the courts. Or is thinking like this considered dangerous in modern society?

Edited the title to make it work the new reduced title limit.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50383919]Edited the title to make it work the new reduced title limit.[/QUOTE] Thank you sir

If you call 911, it should transmit your GPS location overlaid onto to audio signal with a common standard, and the 911 center should be able to decode it. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography[/url] You don't need to give the police the ability to request anyone's GPS data on demand. That'd be fucking insane.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50384684]If you call 911, it should transmit your GPS location overlaid onto to audio signal with a common standard, and the 911 center should be able to decode it. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography[/url] You don't need to give the police the ability to request anyone's GPS data on demand. That'd be fucking insane.[/QUOTE] Whats the point of hiding it when its going to the dispatch center? Insane until someone at-risk is missing. Insane until someone's life is in danger. And they already do have access under E911. This is literally the point of E911. If the carrier uses GPS, which most now do, they can get your location 50% of the time within 50 meters. If the carrier uses network triangulation (cell towers) they can get your location within 100 meters 50% of the time. This is on every phone sold in the US since 1996 as required by the FCC. Next Generation 911 (started in 2008, really) is starting to show up more in the US. NG911 allows for audio, video, and text to be accessible by the dispatch centers.