cell phone

Summary:
In the article “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized”, in Information Management Journal, Mar/Apr 2005, Vol 40, the author, Nikki Swartz, stated that the Unite States government compelled officials use cellphone to monitor theirs demeanor in these few years. However, Swartz reported that this surveillance is not a legal prescript. Swartz recommended the cellphone companies supported this surveillance. Those cellphone companies told the government where those suspects are as long as they turned on the cellphones. Moreover, Swartz also reported that cellphone companies supplied this service to parents because parents want to know the location of their children. Swartz found that, some magistrate judges refused this surveillance because they though that surveillance infringed their personal right. Stephen W. Smith, who is a magistrate in Fedral District Court in the Southern District of Texas, told Swartz, "The distinction between cell site data and information gathered by a tracking device has practically vanished." Smith also told Swartz that the huge data of cellphones’ conversation made the courts difficult to make a decision.

Critique:
Personal secret is very important. In this case, I think the U.S. government should cancel that unfair surveillance. The government doesn’t have right to know the location of their officers when they are not in the job. Sometimes, cellphones are very dangerous because the cellphone companies can know where you are and what you are doing. Moreover, the cellphone companies give our cellphone numbers to the other people. Sometimes you picked up the cellphone, but you don’t know who is calling you. Cellphone companies should keep your secret, not sell our secret.