Proposal before Congress on text messages stirs debate on rights, police work |

Proposal before Congress on text messages stirs debate on rights, police work

Text messages could dwell for years in digital archives if law enforcement agencies persuade Congress to require cellular service providers to store messages in case they’re needed as evidence in criminal investigations.

The Senate is considering the first major update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act since its enactment in 1986, six years before a British engineer used a computer to send the first SMS (short message service) text on Dec. 3, 1992, to wish a colleague “Merry Christmas.”

Twenty years later, cellphone users send and receive nearly 2.3 trillion text messages a year, and the nation’s 321.7 million wireless subscriptions outnumber its population, according to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.

Privacy advocates contend that allowing police to fish through years of fleeting text messages would expose cellphone users to unreasonable searches prohibited under the Fourth Amendment.

Authorities take a different view.

“Today’s electronic communications devices are silent witnesses to the vast majority of crimes,” associations representing district attorneys, police chiefs, county sheriffs and others wrote in a letter to Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking minority member.

Archiving text messages could solve criminal cases and holds “the key to ruling out suspects and exonerating the innocent,” the law enforcement groups wrote in a Nov. 28 followup letter. It notes the law does not require service providers to respond swiftly to requests backed by warrants.

“From the civil liberties perspective, it’s somewhat horrifying that we have this ephemeral communication channel that law enforcement is saying we should start storing,” said Lorrie Cranor, a Carnegie Mellon University computer science and public policy professor and director of the CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory.

Cranor said establishing a repository of text messages would add to the trend of building snooping capabilities into a telecommunications system created for communication, not surveillance. “Going after text messages seems to be the next logical step,” she said.

Most major cell service providers log details about text messages — such as when and from where they were sent — for at least a year, but generally they do not retain message content, according to a Department of Justice report.

Verizon keeps message content for three to five days; Virgin Mobile, which is owned by Sprint, retains it for 90 days, according to the August 2010 report.

It’s unclear whether that has changed. Verizon did not respond to questions, and a Virgin Mobile spokeswoman declined to comment. T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint and Nextel told the government they do not retain message content.

Wesley Oliver, a Duquesne University law professor, said an amendment to the privacy act might withstand a constitutional challenge if it requires police to limit their searches to specific, predetermined words and people involved in, for example, crimes involving drugs, guns or domestic abuse.

“So if someone is suspected of smuggling diamonds the police couldn’t do a search for references to cocaine,” Oliver said. “A judge can tell police to look for only certain things.”

Oliver said cellular service providers might have a stronger legal argument against requiring text message storage because it would require adding memory capacity and, presumably, hiring technicians capable of combing through messages quickly to comply with a warrant.

Pittsburgh police Sgt. Michael Del Cimmuto said the city’s Computer Crimes Unit rarely needs to contact cell service providers to obtain message content.

“With the advancement in computer forensic investigations, we are able to get most information from the cell phone itself,” Del Cimmuto said.

Assuming a cellphone belonging to a suspect or victim can be found, Del Cimmuto said he and three other city detectives are trained to use Cellebrite, the industry standard cellphone forensic tool, to retrieve data from phones.

That includes data the owner deleted, he said.

Smaller police departments that don’t have the latest forensic tools might have to rely more on cellphone providers, Del Cimmuto said.

Text and email messages figured prominently in criminal cases in Pennsylvania, ranging from the “Bonusgate” scandal in the state Legislature to the trial of a Monroeville teenager convicted of stabbing his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend to death in 2007 after sending dozens of angst-ridden messages.

Phil DiLucente, a criminal defense lawyer, said cellphone users must be notified that the content of their text messages could be stored and potentially end up in court.

“If they are going to notify people that this is going to be retained, then people might change their texting behavior,” he said.

Jeremy Boren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7935 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.