A very tough issue indeed.

On the one hand, this ability to track people would work well in the war on terror. Although I expect the terrorists would have sense enough to use those throw away phones.

The 4th amendment does say:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated"

I guess it will come down to what is considered effects. I would think it would mean personal property such as a cell phone. It is also depends on how the word unreasonable will be defined. For example is it unreasonable for a government agency to request the phone records of a suspected terrorist(s) or terror cell, as compared to Jane Doe talking to her BFF on the phone?

I would think that the idea of "reasonable" would also lend itself to the individual that is basically a law abidding citizen with nothing to hide.

All the above being said, it does scare me that the elite statists will MISUSE the tools neccessary to, for lack of a better term, catch the bad guys, and start spying on everyday innocent citizens.

" everyday innocent citizens " ? Nonsense! Anyone

who opposes the party in power is not an "inocent citizen" but a danger to the country!

I'm curious to hear the "outrage" from the left when their own BO hero "violates" their privacy rights. Where's the leftmedia on this one?

Why is it that reasonable and unreasonable means different things? If you have nothing to hide then it seems reasonable-if you do have something that you don't want the gov. to know about then it is unreasonable. Get real-the framers had no idea that we would have such crazy things to contend with in this day and age.

I agree with Richard. It could be used as a good thing at this time - to get information from and about terrorists. But, it can also morph into being used against law-abiding citizens, i.e. Conservatives who want this nation run by the Constitution. When members of our military are on trial for protecting us against terrorists, and people who are Christian are said to be as bad or worse than terrorists, then Americans who want freedom from Government and are against Socialism could be marked as suspects and their privacy unprotected.

It is not a tough issue at all. Do you think by owning a cell phone you forfeit your right against government intrusion and your right to privacy? IF there is reasonable belief that an individual is a suspect in some nefarious activity, tell it to a judge and get a search warrant. Then the government can follow them to their hearts content. Otherwise –don’t tread on me.

This shouldn’t even be a question for the courts. While I agree that being able to track suspected terrorists is good, warrants, though time-consuming, are a most important safeguard against further encroachment upon liberties. (Has anyone else noted that "Warrantless: without requirement for an instrument, issued by a magistrate, authorizing an officer to make an arrest, seize property, make a search, or carry a judgment into execution", and "warrantless: without justification" are easily interchanged here?) Dr. Franklin once penned “They who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” It is irrelevant that I have “nothing to hide”, I still have the right to hide it if I so choose, regardless of how much not knowing my secrets brings you fear. I think that, while unable to predict the level of technology and ease with which we wield it, this is something the Framers did consider. I believe they would be astonished by our lack of public outrage against "warrantless" anything and the removal of liberties without due process of law as dictated in the 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Agreed. If I am a suspect of wrongdoing- get a warrant! Otherwise LEAVE me ALONE!! It's like the explanation of how to catch a wild pig.......

It I am a suspect get a warrent. Thats why we have courts and judges. Here in American, we are "innocent until proven guilty".

Oh... Jim B. It's nice to reminisce about Nazi tactics (as well as communist, fascist, socialist et al) to enter your home/business and just do a little looking around. If you have nothing to hide, whats the big deal? Und by your reluctance ve can only conclude you do have somezing to hide, vell zen zat would explain your reluctance now vouldn't it? Ja?

Reasonable = a warrant from a judge authorizing the search and seizure. Unreasonable = no warrant. End of story.

Jim B., regarding your comment "Get real-the framers had no idea that we would have such crazy things to contend with in this day and age." The Framers were fully aware of the fact that things might come up that they could not even conceive of in their time. That's why the constitution can be amended.

Yeah, JimBo...since you have nothing to hide, surely you won't mind if we walk into your home unannounced and uninvited, tap your phones, put cameras in your bathrooms, install a GPS tracking device in your personal vehicles, and put RFID chips in your children and pets. It's all for your protection, of course!

Do I have this right? Bush was doing it(so they said) and they wanted to bring him to trial. Obama wants to do it and from the press we get Nada, zip, zilch, zero, etc. Am I missing something here?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Big Brother is big enough already. The fault is in the PC regulations promulgated by bureaucrats, and "activists", who never ever get close to the pointy end of the spear. As a commercial traveler I am subject to more searches, seizures, and scrutiny daily than our citizenry has experienced since WW2. Could we elect representatives that will strengthen our resolve to after the bad guys fast and hard? The ACLU's mewling protestations can be addressed after we eliminate those who are actively, openly, and enthusiastically killing us every chance they get. The battle is in Congress folks. Start there and start now. 2010 is coming and we can make a difference.

I am a former trial attorney, have worked as a prosecutor, and have worked on the side of law enforcement for six years taking stuff from drug traffickers. Notwithstanding my desire to lock up those who break our laws, we cannot open the door, even slightly, to government asserting and gaining a right to basically track us wherever we are. I am not a criminal, but I do not want anyone I do not know to be able to find out where I am at any given time by simply looking up my cell phone use. I often use my cellphone when on vacation with my family. I might even use it if our government gets oppressive, but it is my cellphone, not theirs. Our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is easy to apply to this situation. Again, we cannot crack open this door without risking government abuse, which will surely follow.

It is a slipery slope, but it is correct to say that since technology advanced communication tech isn't going away soon, this issue needs to be fully vetted. We cannot just hand the terrorist over the field of communications. The last 12 months of terrorist operated from the US. Personally, in light of terrorism I think supercomputers fishing through signals looking for very specific and defined values is a must. But the parameters of the fishing must be clearly defined and defended against expansion to include things not an imminent threat to the state, such as organized crime. Some independent organ must carefully AND FAITHFULLY monitor what is being monitored for its relevance to national security within predefined parameters. Next special and exclusive FISA judges must be on call 24/7 to provide law enforcement with warrants the capability to act swiftly, within hours.

To paraphrase “Murphy’s Law,” If warrantless search/seizure/tracking by the government can be done to anyone, it will sooner or later be done to everyone. All governments (including the U.S.) have a proven track record of this type of abuse. I am a Viet Nam vet and am proud to have fought in defense of my country and the principals upon which it was founded. However, I am ashamed to have fought and defended what this government has become. Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Hopefully the “little rebellion” Jefferson referred to will be via the ballot box. Until a majority of Americans break out of their “entitlement” mindset and embrace personal responsibility, the U.S. will continue down the road to a nanny-state socialist society. But if the government continues on its present course, I fear, as Jefferson noted, the tree of liberty will once again be watered with the blood of patriots.

If you view the government as evil, then anything they do, whether good for your or not, will be viewed negatively. If you view the government as basically good, then it will be viewed as a good thing. Why is it that if knowing where you are (via cellphone) ie; you need help, then it's ok for the gov to track your phone (victim of crime) but it's not ok to track it if you're a suspect in a crime, regardless of the crime. Personally, I'm fine with LE/Gov knowing where my cell phone is because it won't be somewhere I shouldn't be. We find a lot of people this way. Ever heard of OnStar?

Curt Littman - in our Texas' Constitution's "Bill of Rights" confiscation of property is forbidden even upon conviction of a felony. I am amazed at the dichotomy shown by your statements and your actions. First, the government has no constitutional power granted to it to control the private lives of our citizens, i.e. prohibition...or why did we need the 18th amendment regarding alcohol? Unconstitutional laws need to be shunned and juries need to nullify them but you and the judges of today don't even inform juries of their DUTY to look at the law, decide first if it is constitutional and second, if it is constitutional, whether it is being applied justly. Shame on you for supporting unconstitutional law and destroying people's lives even faster than they are themselves. We have good laws regarding the violation or theft of property and liberty. Prosecute those who initiate violence, theft or fraud for what ever reason and leave the honest folk alone. You need to wake up even more than you indicate you have already. Gd bless.

First off the cell phone has the ability to turn off the GPS feature. Secondly the government doesn't have the right to follow what you are doing except with a warrant in hand as guaranteed by the Constitution, when you call 911 the GPS turns on so that they can find you even if you are not able to talk but it turns off again when you hang up. They may be able to track where you made a call from by using towers in the area but that doesn't lead them top you. This reminds me of the fact that a woman was put on the terriost watch list simply because she was on the phone and talking about her son, a football player, throwing a long bomb the word bomb was picked up and there by put her and her family on the watch list by part of the alphabet soup in Washington. We need to watch our government against this type of abuse.

Steve, it's not just about whether you find the government to be generally good or generally evil in the present that makes these things matter, but also in the future.

And it's worth keeping in mind that the "government" is made up of a lot of people, some who can be good and some aren't, even if the government as a whole is good.

The rule of law is something the government must uphold above all else, lest it has no meaning at all for those under it.

My very spirit is affronted at this proposed invasion of my privacy, although I have nothing to hide I am against warrantless nvasion of my privacy. If this does become a law I will fight it, I lived the first 50 years of my life without a cellphone, it will not be impossible to go back to those ways.

This is a great thread but are we missing the intent of the Amendment? It seems folks are missing an important phrase in the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS...against unreasonable searches and seizures..." I am sure all of us are very uncomfortable in "our persons" to know that the government Big Brother is monitoring our location as well as potentially our conversations. I know I am if someone monitors my location and conversations without my approval.

Warrants are a necessity in this area because the person wanting the warrant needs to show "probable cause" that a crime is being committed and therefore a violation of a right has to be approved via a warrant.

Verizon Wireless offers a service called Chaperone where parents can track their kids via their GPS-enabled cell phones. And as long as the battery is in the phone, Verizon can turn on the phone without your knowledge and reconfigure it; that is how they do software and firmware updates. So tracking is already being done but by knowing parents choosing to take advantage of a service offered by a commercial company to maintain awareness of their minor children. Are the parents in violation of their childrens' 4th Amendment rights? What are the rights of minors in this situation? Can the government force Verizon to track and locate people using this service without a warrant? Does the government already have equipment in place to do this without the people knowing about it? This is exactly why warrants are necessary.

Technology is great when it is used for the the right purposes. But nefarious uses, especially those that violate the rights of others, need to be scrutinized in the toughest of manners. As we know and this current administration continually shows, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How does this fit into the Patriot Act of the Bush Administration that was so disdained by the left? Quite nicely, I surmise....

I would think it would be possible to disable the GPS in a cell phone, although location still could be roughly deternined by cell tower triangulation (assuming at least three towers are hearing).

This is a no-brainer to me. Without cause (and warrent), my right to privacy shall not be abridged. This is a Human Right. Period.

The problem is not about rights for citizens anymore. The laws will be changed and any American standing up for the TRUTH of the BIBLE will be considered a terrorist and all privacy will have already been taken away. A "hate" crime will be saying that sinners are on there way to hell and "extremist" preachers will be put in prison.

WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?

Will be the biggest question in the next 10 years.

Wasn't it the left politico and the MSM that for years criticized the Bush administration for warrant-less wire tapping of any phone? Now that their boy is in the seat ..... it's a different story.

Well, I love that story Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. I'd like the film rights to this one. We'll take it to Hollywood. What a cadre of fakers and fops. No way three more years of this crew. Let the ACLU go after this bunch. (don't hold your breath)

Ed, anyone that opposes a party in power that wants to strip me of my Fourth Amendment or any of my rights are called patriots or Constitutionalist not a danger to my country. The danger to the nation is setting in the White house and at the head of both Houses of Congress.

If you don't want the government to track you,don't use a phone with G.P.S. The bad guy's don't.Try telling (a cost inflating add on) your phone manufacturer that you no longer want G.P.S. product. YES, the forth amendment protects for unreasonable search but consider the people that make that decision.