The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a warrant is required for police to access location information from a cellphone or other mobile device. The case involved the conviction of two men for armed robbery, a conviction that relied in part on cell site location information (CSLI) obtained from Sprint. The decision in U.S. v. Aaron Graham was written by Senior Judge Andre Davis for himself and for Judge Stephanie Thacker. But Thacker also issued a concurrence and Judge Diana Gribbon Motz partly dissented. “We hold that the government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it obtains and inspects a cell phone user’s historical CSLI for an extended period of time,” the court ruled Wednesday. “Examination of a person’s historical CSLI can enable the government to trace the movements of the cell phone and its user across public and private spaces and thereby discover the private activities and personal habits of the user. Cell phone users have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in this information.” The 4th Circuit said cellphone location information raises bigger privacy issues than data from tracking devices in an automobile. “Quite unlike an automobile, a cell phone is a small hand-held device that is often hidden on the person of its user and seldom leaves her presence,” the court said. “Cell phone users regularly carry these devices into their homes and other private spaces to which automobiles have limited access at best.” Motz disagreed with the majority that obtaining information from a voluntarily surrendered cellphone requires a warrant. The decision did the two defendants in the case little good, saying that since the government “relied in good faith on court orders” issued in accordance with Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or the Stored Communications Act, “the court’s admission of the challenged evidence must be sustained.” Thacker wrote separately of her concern "about the erosion of privacy in this era of rapid technological development." The "tension between the right to privacy and emerging technology, particularly as it relates to cell phones, impacts all Americans," she wrote. "As the march of technological progress continues to advance upon our zone of privacy, each step forward should be met with considered judgment that errs on the side of protecting privacy and accounts for the practical realities of modern life. At bottom, this decision continues a time-honored American tradition -- obtaining a warrant is the rule, not the exception." The Center for Democracy & Technology said the decision is significant. “The government compelled the disclosure of 221 days of cell phone location information, which included 26,659 location data points for one defendant and 28,410 for another,” a CDT news release said. “Unless reversed by the full 4th Circuit, the decision sets up a clear split in the circuits about the extent of protection of cell phone location information. As a result, this issue will likely require resolution by the Supreme Court.” Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said the case is “an important reminder that government should not have free rein to infringe on the constitutional right to due process” and called for overhaul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). “More than 20 years after email became ubiquitous, our laws remain woefully outdated,” she said in a statement. “I urge leadership to take up ECPA reform without delay.”

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a warrant is required for police to access location information from a cellphone or other mobile device. The case involved the conviction of two men for armed robbery, a conviction that relied in part on cell site location information (CSLI) obtained from Sprint. The decision in U.S. v. Aaron Graham was written by Senior Judge Andre Davis for himself and for Judge Stephanie Thacker. But Thacker also issued a concurrence and Judge Diana Gribbon Motz partly dissented. “We hold that the government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it obtains and inspects a cell phone user’s historical CSLI for an extended period of time,” the court ruled Wednesday. “Examination of a person’s historical CSLI can enable the government to trace the movements of the cell phone and its user across public and private spaces and thereby discover the private activities and personal habits of the user. Cell phone users have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in this information.” The 4th Circuit said cellphone location information raises bigger privacy issues than data from tracking devices in an automobile. “Quite unlike an automobile, a cell phone is a small hand-held device that is often hidden on the person of its user and seldom leaves her presence,” the court said. “Cell phone users regularly carry these devices into their homes and other private spaces to which automobiles have limited access at best.” Motz disagreed with the majority that obtaining information from a voluntarily surrendered cellphone requires a warrant. The decision did the two defendants in the case little good, saying that since the government “relied in good faith on court orders” issued in accordance with Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or the Stored Communications Act, “the court’s admission of the challenged evidence must be sustained.” Thacker wrote separately of her concern "about the erosion of privacy in this era of rapid technological development." The "tension between the right to privacy and emerging technology, particularly as it relates to cell phones, impacts all Americans," she wrote. "As the march of technological progress continues to advance upon our zone of privacy, each step forward should be met with considered judgment that errs on the side of protecting privacy and accounts for the practical realities of modern life. At bottom, this decision continues a time-honored American tradition -- obtaining a warrant is the rule, not the exception." The Center for Democracy & Technology said the decision is significant. “The government compelled the disclosure of 221 days of cell phone location information, which included 26,659 location data points for one defendant and 28,410 for another,” a CDT news release said. “Unless reversed by the full 4th Circuit, the decision sets up a clear split in the circuits about the extent of protection of cell phone location information. As a result, this issue will likely require resolution by the Supreme Court.” Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said the case is “an important reminder that government should not have free rein to infringe on the constitutional right to due process” and called for overhaul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). “More than 20 years after email became ubiquitous, our laws remain woefully outdated,” she said in a statement. “I urge leadership to take up ECPA reform without delay.”

Broadcasters and public interest groups lost their fight to keep all TV stations out of the duplex gap between uplink and downlink frequencies bought by carriers in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. That was as expected (see 1507300042), though it left both broadcasters and the public interest groups upset. The FCC approved 3-2 the “procedures” for the auction, after a contentious debate. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly said the rules could set the auction up for failure.

Broadcasters and public interest groups lost their fight to keep all TV stations out of the duplex gap between uplink and downlink frequencies bought by carriers in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. That was as expected (see 1507300042), though it left both broadcasters and the public interest groups upset. The FCC approved 3-2 the “procedures” for the auction, after a contentious debate. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly said the rules could set the auction up for failure.

Broadcasters and public interest groups lost their fight to keep all TV stations out of the duplex gap between uplink and downlink frequencies bought by carriers in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction. That was as expected (see 1507300042), though it left both broadcasters and the public interest groups upset. The FCC approved 3-2 the “procedures” for the auction, after a contentious debate. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly said the rules could set the auction up for failure.

Comment deadlines in the Lifeline USF Further NPRM were extended a couple of weeks, said an order issued by the FCC Wireline Bureau Wednesday in docket 11-42. Initial comments had been due Aug. 17, replies Sept. 15, but telecom trade groups and state parties asked for 30-day extensions (see 1507310061, 1508030067 and 1508040031). Bureau Chief Matthew DelNero said an extension was warranted, given the requests and the "breadth and complexity" of the second Further NPRM aimed at revamping the Lifeline program for broadband coverage and administrative restructuring. But he said the bureau was granting just a 14-day extension for initial comments until Aug. 31 and a 15-day extension until Sept. 30 for replies because it was committed to acting "in a timely manner." The "limited" extensions "will allow for more thoughtful consideration of the issues raised in the Second FNPRM, while at the same time not unduly delaying the resolution of these issues," he said.

Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.

Senate leaders agreed Wednesday to a deal to advance consideration of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. The deal would allow consideration of 22 amendments to S-754 but delayed further votes on the bill until after the August recess. The deal, announced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also set up a Senate debate in September on the White House's nuclear deal with Iran. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., separately told reporters that making a deal on the Iran debate was crucial in final negotiations on the S-754 schedule. Senate Republicans will offer 10 amendments on S-754, while Senate Democrats will offer 11. The agreement on further S-754 debate followed contentious behind-the-scenes negotiations that appeared as late as Wednesday afternoon to be at a stalemate.

Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.

Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.