6 ms·

> In the case before the court, Timothy Carpenter’s cellular provider supplied investigators a record of his smartphone’s whereabouts. The pings placed Carpente

> In the case before the court, Timothy Carpenter’s cellular provider supplied investigators a record of his smartphone’s whereabouts. The pings placed Carpenter in the vicinity of several armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan. Now behind bars, he is asking the justices to find this a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be safe from warrantless searches of his private domain. What is this bullshit?! Next a guy will murder somebody in the woods and return home in a bus. And the bus driver cannot tell the police he saw the guy on that route at such time? Have people gone insane over "privacy"?

betterunix2 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Doesn't apply because this doesn't violate any rights.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    That is the question before the courts...
ISL 9y ago
The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. The ISP/cellphone company can choose not to give the history. > Amendment Four Nowhere does it say that third parties cannot provide information about you. Location data using cell tower usage is not the user's "person, house, paper or effect". It belongs to the operator.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > The ISP/cellphone company can choose not to give the history. NSL's have shown us that they can't

betterunix2 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

dingo_bat 9y ago
Doesn't apply because this doesn't violate any rights.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  That is the question before the courts...

ISL 9y ago

The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

dingo_bat 9y ago
> The alternative is to allow the government to be able to search anyone's entire location history for the past decade at its own whim, without requesting a warrant. The ISP/cellphone company can choose not to give the history. > Amendment Four Nowhere does it say that third parties cannot provide information about you. Location data using cell tower usage is not the user's "person, house, paper or effect". It belongs to the operator.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > The ISP/cellphone company can choose not to give the history. NSL's have shown us that they can't