Technology Trespass - Essay Example

Technology Trespass Introduction The last decade has been marked by technological development on an unprecedented scale. The development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in particular has ushered in radical changes in the way human beings work, play and conduct their lives as a whole. ICT has pervaded all walks of life and fields of work, the computer and the Internet are now considered ubiquitous and essential, and people in general have accepted that the world has entered a new Digital Era. Yet each new technical innovation brings with both advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes we are prompt in seizing the advantages, but rather lackadaisical in dealing with the disadvantages. The case of mobile telephony or the cellular phone is an ideal example. Two articles, the first titled “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized” by Nikki Swatrz (2006) published in the Information Management Journal and the second title “Reach Out and Track Someone” by Terry J Allen ( ----) published on the website http://www.digg.del.icio.us, addresses the many issues raised by the tracking of cell phones. Both the articles highlights how wireless technology companies are able to track cell phones even when they are not in use, and how this facility has been used by the government and law enforcing agencies. The articles also point out the high probability of misuse of such technologies both by government and private agencies leading to the violation of privacy of the individual. While Swartz (2006) is more general in her approach, Allen (----) gives specific examples to prove his points. The objective of this paper is to establish the fact that even though the facility of tracking a cellular phone can be used effectively and logically for crime detection and prevention, there should be adequate legal and constitutional checks to prevent the misuse of this new technological feature. The Advantages and the Disadvantages The cell phone has endowed human kind with the boon of remaining in constant contact with each other almost throughout the world and possibly beyond, but it also raises issues of infringement into the most private and personal of a persons domain or space, not because a person remains accessible at every place, at all times with her or his consent and knowledge as a user, but primarily because even without the knowledge or consent of the user, the location of a cell phone can be tracked within about 300 yards (Nikki, 2006) irrespective of whether the cell phone is being used to make a call or not as long as the phone is on. Real-time cell phone tracking can be both a boon and a bane. The case of the murder of the young, attractive, middle-class white female Imette St Guillen in New York (Allen, 200-) illustrates how exactly real-time tracking technology works. A crucial piece of evidence that led to the arrest of the accused Darryl Little John was his cell phone records that enable the police to track where Darryl was at the time of the murder. In fact it was not that the ‘cell phone records’ were records of the calls Darryl had made from his cell phone but rather the tracking of his switched-on cell phone that enabled the police to place Darryl at the time and scene of the murder. Cell phone companies can track phones real time because cell phones either work with global positioning systems or through a system of ‘pings’ or sort of identifying signal sign-ins with the sell phone tower in the area of operation which enables these towers to triangulate and locate the point from where the pings are emanating with a high degree of precision, the same technology that is used for the very convenient GPS navigation system that is an essential component of the new lot of cars nowadays. This case brings to the fore the built-in capability of phones to locate users even when they are not making calls. It highlights the efficacy of the system in law enforcement as well as the vulnerability of each of the more than 200 million Americans who regularly use cell phones and necessarily and usually keep them on, on a round-the-clock basis. What is the guarantee that someone, somewhere will not misuse the same real-time tracking capability to take undue advantage or violate the privacy of individuals that Americans and people of every freedom-loving nation hold so sacred and precious? For it is not only the government and the law enforcement agencies but also the wireless technology companies such as Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, AT&T, etc. What makes tracking even more dangerous is that these companies can store and archive the records or cell site data of individuals so that a history sheet of phone location information on every individual is readily available. It does not end at that – this record can be so precise that “the distinction between cell site data and information gathered by a tracking device has practically vanished" (Nikki, 2006). Evidence of Violations And cases of probable misuse of cell phone tracking technology and data have already been reported. Law enforcement officials have tended to regularly monitor suspects by tracking their cell phones with very easily obtained court orders under a much lower legal standard than required for obtaining a search warrant. Even the US Justice Department had been using a baseless legal argument to obtain the court orders Evidence has been found that AT&T had been diverting information on Internet traffic wholesale to the NSA (Nikki, 2006). When in comes to the telephone companies, nothing could stop them from selling the data that they could obtain on user cell phones if they could do so without breaking any rules. The same profit-making motive could provide unethical but legally unquestionable entrepreneurial opportunities of services offering to track the movements of wayward wives and husbands, children and other loved ones. A site called wherify.com is already on offering to locate target cell phone users within a few feet or meters in a matter of minutes. Another Internet business claims that it can provide the calling records of any cell phone, for a price of course (Allen, 200-). There goes privacy right out of the window. It is a situation in which every person can be put under surveillance all the time by almost anyone and every one who chooses to do so. Legal Issues Law enforcement agencies claim that the 1986 Stored Communications Act as amended in 1994 should be adequate enough in matters of obtaining court orders for tracking cell phones. Legal experts are however of the opinion that the Stored Communication Act as it is today, refers to stored or historical data obtained in the past but not to real-time live tracking. Law enforcement agencies are quick to counteract that the US PATRIOT Act allows cell phone tracking. Matters are complicated because the government do not have to make any public declaration when it tracks any cell phone, and the individual concerned remains oblivious to the fact. Dealing with the Situation The situation is however turning around. The New York Times reported that in 2005 three US federal judges denied prosecutors the permission to track cell phones without providing ‘probable cause’ of the same standard as required for search warrants. The US Department, in line with the then Bush Administration justification for wiretapping without warrants, had pointed out that the time required to produce ‘probable cause’ equivalent to a search warrant would result in the loss of precious time and could seriously jeopardize any case. Several judges have however not agreed to this argument. The legal community has by far and large “ruled that surveillance by cell phone because it acts like an electronic tracking device that can follow people into homes and other personal spaces must meet the same high legal standard required to obtain a search warrant to enter private places” (Nikki, 2006). Coming to Terms Every new technological innovation brings appreciable advantages, but also throws up its own challenges. They are like the two sides of the same coin. In the digital era, the cell phone has brought immense advantages but has also underscored the growing debate over privacy rights and government surveillance in the context of national security and corporate profits. It takes time to make adjustment to and check such challenges. But there is every indication that in the United States, people are aware of the circumstances and adequate measures are slowly but surely being developed, evolved and put in place to strike the right balance between triple basic rights of security, privacy and profitability as ensconced in the Constitution. Works Cited -01 1. Nikki, S., “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized”, Information Management Journal, March, 2006 2. Allen, T., J., “Reach Out and Track Someone”, Reddit Newsvine, 200-, http://www.digg.del.icio.us Read More