19 ms·
Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant to Track Your Cellphone
- motorole3 8y agoThe only way to get it done is to contact DarkWeb. Contact darkwebsolutions dot c0 for all your hack related issuues hack any whatsapp account, fix credit score, delete criminal records etc. darkwebsolutions d0t c0
- sharemywin 8y agoshouldn't that apply to companies too?
- icebraining 8y agoNo, the Fourth Amendment only applies to the government. You'd need to pass a new law prohibiting companies from doing the same.
- alex_young 8y ago> the Fourth Amendment only applies to the government. Source? The way I read it there doesn't seem to be any such restriction. IIRC there weren't corporations in the modern sense when the bill of rights was written.
- wyldfire 8y agoBurdeau v. McDowell
- jcranmer 8y agoThe Constitution is binding only on the government; it is a document that lays out what the United States federal government, and, in a few cases, what the states of the United States can and cannot do. The Bill of Rights is a set of 10 amendments that restrict what the federal government can do with respect to citizens. The 14th amendment extends those restrictions from the federal government to include state governments as well. (Since local governments are considered extensions of the state government's jurisdiction, it's included as well). > IIRC there weren't corporations in the modern sense when the bill of rights was written. The Virginia Company is a corporation in the modern sense that is literally the origin of the United States. Actually, if anything, corporations have gotten less powerful since the Bill of Rights; we don't have any companies running countries any more.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> IIRC there weren't corporations in the modern sense when the bill of rights was written. The Dutch East India Company was a publicly-traded multinational corporation as early as the early 1600s.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y agoSo what happens when a company is acting on behalf of/as an extension of the government? And exactly how close can that relationship get? If I'm a cell phone company and decide to just give the government access to all data I have pass through my systems, is that allowed? What if the government gives me some benefit in return for it?
- Invictus0 8y ago> When police apprehended some members of the ring, the smaller fish implicated the leader of the ring, Timothy Carpenter. Police got a court order to get access to 127 days of cellphone tracking records for Carpenter and other members of the gang. > Lo and behold, Carpenter's general location information matched the robbery locations, and that information was used to help convict him. Carpenter appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, contending that the Constitution required that police first obtain a warrant before getting this location information from a service provider. This paragraph makes it seem like the govt must get a warrant before it can ask the service provider for that information.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y agoBut what happens if I give without being asked? If I provide an API for them to pull any data they want, is it that they need a warrant to make a data pull? If I drop off a book with the data, they need a warrant before opening the book?
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoRead the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
- blind_boy_grunt 8y ago> So what happens when a company is acting on behalf of/as an extension of the government? And exactly how close can that relationship get? FYI, the legal term you're looking for is "state actor". In case that helps with googling.
- rrhel 8y agoInteractions and the special implicit relationship with the government are involuntary.
- mchannon 8y agoThe police were getting it from the companies, without a search warrant, so one step at a time. Supreme Court rulings are narrow in general, and this opinion took pains to make it narrower than normal. Companies need to know where you are so they can route your call, bill the appropriate party the correct amount, and credit the appropriate tower operator.
- rm_-rf_slash 8y agoUnfortunately, the constitution was written by folks who at the time likely could not have imagined the kind of corporate power and technology that exists today. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/madisons-privacy-blind-spot.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/madisons-p...
- fein 8y agoThis NPR article was incredibly light on details. Here's the full record: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
- jcranmer 8y agoThe full record is a 120-page decision, including 4 separate dissenting opinions, that came out less than an hour ago. Do you really expect a full digestion of the opinion in that time frame?
- fein 8y agoI'd expect a bit more from a news company that makes the claims on journalistic prowess NPR does, like a brief summary on what grounds the judges wrote their dissents. Took me all of 5 minutes to ctrl+f through the doc and find each record. To save you some time, the issue seemed to be that the individual does not create, maintain, or store the records in question, so the 4th amendment does not apply in this instance.
- ceejayoz 8y agoNPR's standard of understanding before putting it in the article is likely a little higher than having a reporter skim and a Ctrl+F, especially in the era of "fake news" accusations.
- jessriedel 8y agoIf you actually have a writer who is already familiar with the legal aspects of the case, you can put out insightful analysis very quickly (cf. SCOTUSblog). Instead, we live in a world where the NPR journalist (Nina Totenberg) has just about every legal journalism award you can receive but doesn't have a law degree and is most famous for legal soap-opera material (e.g., revealing which supreme court justice had smoked marijuana). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg The reason there's no analysis here is because there isn't a market for it.
- scarface74 8y agoHow much does that help in practice? The judicial branch has a history of taking the police's word without too much push back on the flimsiest of evidence.
- mchannon 8y agoBy requiring warrants, they're involving the judicial branch. Before, government investigators were dealing directly with the communications providers and bypassing judicial oversight.
- scarface74 8y agoThe judicial branch is just going to rubber stamp anything that the police say they want.
- mchannon 8y agoYes, but now the police have to do the work of asking, which is better than nothing.
- squozzer 8y agoAND a judge has to put their name on it. Granted, IDs of judges are kept secret for certain courts, BUT nothing stays secret forever, e.g. Stasi records in the former DDR.
- timdev2 8y agoProbable cause is a low bar, but it's quantifiably higher than no bar. What constitutes sufficient PC for a warrant is a related, but distinct issue from whether PC (however interpreted) is required at all.
- mrguyorama 8y agoAs stated by another comment, now they have to create the standard paper trail for each tracking instance, which makes accountability and transparency a semi-valid possibility
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lvspiff 8y agoROBERTS, C. J., GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN agreed. KENNEDY THOMAS ALITO and GORSUCH dissented. The mix of the court on this particular issue is amazing to me. Roberts is turning out to be one of the most balanced judges since Kennedy in terms of hearing a case of merits and not just ideology. Bush did something right bringing on that guy.
- gbacon 8y agoJohn Roberts: aligned chaotic-neutral.
- docker_up 8y agoThis statement is wrong. He has always been fair and lawful, to say otherwise shows ignorance of his breadth of work, not only at the Supreme Court, but his entire career. Roberts is an honorable man, regardless of who put him in.
- knuththetruth 8y agoI find it quite questionable that a person who, in 2018, does not believe in the legal equality of gay people should be considered “honorable.”
- wallace_f 8y agoYou're downvoted because your post expresses misunderstanding. Roberts rightfully expressed no disdain for same-sex partners, nor did he express it should never be legal. Rather, it should have nothing to do with constitutional law, (nor really even federal law). Sadly all of our modern civil liberties are fought for on self-serving platforms rather than on a social framework consistent with civil liberties. In other words, people claim to be civil libertarians, but they act in a way which suggests they just care about an expedient pathway to the ones they personally care about.
- 8y ago
- cremp 8y agoI listen to the local police radio a bit, and if the caller is on a cell phone; they usually have the location of said phone. I might be misreading, but if they need a warrant to track, wouldn't they need a warrant to get a singular location for an actual 911 emergency?
- cabaalis 8y agoPhase 2 location data for 911 calls can be legitimately treated differently as there is no expectation of privacy necessary when dialing 911 for help.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoI believe location data for 911 calls is part of the TOS for the phone lines.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ipsin 8y agoFrom the decision: "This decision is narrow. It ... does not address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information" and "We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party." Looking side-eyed at the definition of "legitimate privacy interest", because I would think that any request for almost any business records of a person would involve it.
- Someone1234 8y agoI'd just like to raise a point that isn't discussed enough: Requiring a warrant is an extremely low bar to pass. Yet somehow law enforcement has been moving away from even that cursory glance since 9/11. We keep seeing these arguments about how burdensome warrants are, but judges routinely rubber stamp every warrant request that comes across their desk. The reality is that this has nothing to do with "warrant Vs. no-warrant" that's just the headline, when crimes are suspected warrants are trivial to get. The fight really being had here is "warrant Vs. routine monitoring." That's what law enforcement want from this: If you know someone that knows someone that might have committed a crime, they want to invade your privacy "just in case." As I said, if you were directly tied to it a warrant is easy, they want to expand the scope of monitoring.
- Spooky23 8y agoWarrant means an audit trail and coordination with a prosecutor and the judiciary. That's a good thing, as it creates a virtuous cycle. There is accountability and more transparency, vs an internal process where the whims of an official, or a failure to have adequate controls inevitably leads to problems.
- Eridrus 8y agoThe case that went to trial here had coordination with a prosecutor and the judiciary - they got a court order under the federal Stored Communications Act. So I don't really think this will have any of the effects you expect. I'm completely on board with this ruling; the 3rd party doctrine is complete garbage in the digital age, but I think it will have a much narrower effect. I also don't think this ruling will have any effect on mass surveillance that is justified on a completely different legal basis.
- freeflight 8y ago> Warrant means an audit trail and coordination with a prosecutor and the judiciary. But depending on the workload of these people, this can also mean a whole lot of back-log and result in hasty decision making. Germany has a similar trend where judges are supposed to issue warrants for pretty much everything, like searching your house. The problem in actual practice with this is that German judges are already overloaded with all kinds of work, which means they have on average around 3 minutes to process a search-warrant request, that time also includes writing the explanation for why it was denied if it should be denied. 3 minutes isn't a lot of time and getting it wrong can have pretty hefty consequences for the wrongly accused because these days it's often routine to confiscate all the IT hardware and any data media they find. If you are somebody who's self-employed and working in IT, such a search could literally be the end of your business, because it will be years (and many lawyer fees) before you get your stuff back, even if it turns out you never did anything wrong.
- kodablah 8y agoI haven't read the opinion, but what I need to know is what is meant by "obtaining"? I really hope it was made clear that it is even getting the data, not just looking at it or accessing it. This is a crucial difference. More importantly, it could put legal burdens on companies to ask for a warrant before providing this information. Also: "the decision also allows for warrantless cell-tower location information searches [...] for national-security purposes." Sigh.
- djsumdog 8y agoand for 911 calls. So in theory, if there's a case involving a 911 call, that location information can be used without a warrant.
- icebraining 8y agoGorsuch dissent is interesting. His position seems to be that the court's decision is not strong enough in its defense against these searches, not that he disagrees that a warrant is needed.
- SauciestGNU 8y agoThat makes me wonder why he didn't sign on and write a concurring opinion then.
- icebraining 8y agoI'm no laywer, let alone qualified to interpret the SCOTUS, but from what I can tell he disagrees with the whole approach taken, which relies on the "expectation of privacy" test defined in the Katz case, whereas he believes that the court should go back to the Fourth Amendment text itself and review the data (such as the phone's location) under it. Specifically, he seems to be saying that just because the data is currently held by a third-party, that doesn't mean it's not the person's "papers" and as such fully defended from unreasonable searches.
- ajross 8y agoThat's true, but it fails to mention that there is a very specific partisan reason republican justices won't get behind a privacy finding. Gorsuch isn't standing for abstract principle here, he's refusing to stand on the same ground the found for Roe.
- zaroth 8y agoRoe standing on expectation of privacy seems to be a similarly poor analogy. The real missing piece goes back to the same fear the framers had when enacting the Bill of Rights in the first place — namely that by enumerating some rights it would inadvertantly serve to exclude those unenumerated but equally inalienable rights, such as right to self-determination and ownership of one’s own body.
- skellera 8y agoDoes this outlaw stingray use by police? If I am near a suspect and they get all calls in the area, I would be tracked unlawfully?
- djsumdog 8y agoThat's what I was wondering too. There hasn't been any mention, and this is for a years old cellphone case that doesn't deal with GPS tracking, just regular tower triangulation. (The podcast Serial, season 1, covers an interesting cases where such data was used to convict someone for murder). I don't see any specific mention of the Stingray in any of the articles I've seen on this, but from the surface it would seem to indicate police would need a warrant to use a Stingray to target an individual. Anyone else got more info?
- advisedwang 8y agoIt doesn't immediately have that effect. Very likely police will continue to use stingrays until courts explicitly rule against it (and probably has been appealed to the supreme court). However this does indicate the way that the supreme court leans. Not only does this suggest they would rule against stingrays, but it also might push lower courts to also rule against them.
- caconym_ 8y agoI've been skimming but I don't think the data stingrays collect would count as "business records" since they are actually (AFAIK) intercepted communications. Of course, I think they should be subject to the same restrictions and oversight. It's encouraging that the SCOTUS seems to be recognizing (to some degree) the relatively new and uniquely horrific potential of unchecked electronic surveillance.
- quasse 8y agoMy reading of SCOTUSBlog implies that they in fact were fairly careful to imply that today's ruling does not affect stingray use. > "He took pains to point out that the ruling did not “express a view on” other privacy issues, such as obtaining cell-site location records in real time, or getting information about all of the phones that connected to a particular tower at a particular time." http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-hol...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tzahola 8y agoWow, this site has the best GDPR-compliance solution I've seen so far! https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=605007387 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=605007387 Zero JS, zero CSS, just HTML as it was originally intended. Love it!
- obsurveyor 8y agoLook again, there's a bit of javascript in it.
- tzahola 8y agoJust to remind you where you’ve came from.
- Gaelan 8y agoAre they redirecting EU users there?
- tzahola 8y agoOnly if you don’t agree to the cookie prompt.
- malchow 8y agoToken HN conservative here. If you ever get curious about the conservative moment please don't hesitate to email me. There's a lot of interesting debate going on in the Bay Area, but it's sort of subterranean for obvious reasons.
- swirepe 8y agoI'm not in the bay area, but I'm curious about the conservative movement.
- deltateam 8y agoI'm in the bay area, where the "anti-conservative" movement is prevalent which means not considering anything that is against the "anti-conservative" party line. many things aren't considered on their merits simply because the conservative face has done or said things they disagree with even though it is completely unrelated to lawmaking or anything congress would even consider. any dissent is seen as support for the current administration. any dissent is seen as TACIT consent for race-based discrimination, xenophobia, and gender based assault and inequality. any dissent elevates you to being the spokesperson of everything they hate. I understand why. Everyone's entire political party needs to operate as a unit to swing power in their favor. but it is so one dimensional that many people reject it, since there always is a gradient for each separate issue. conservative in this context doesn't mean anti-progressive, or risk averse, or traditional. it is just a political grouping, but in the bay area it means even slightly considering the merit behind a not-democrat party proposal.
- smt88 8y agoHow does conservative not mean anti-progressive? They're opposites by definition, aren't they? I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. This is also how history books divide political forces when describing past societies.
- deltateam 8y ago> I'm not just talking about a colloquial US usage. but thats what we are talking about, thats what context means its as fluid as any variable name you add to a program, in this case that variable's name is conservative.
- jeffdavis 8y agohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf For those who have not read a supreme court opinion before, I recommend it. They are written in plain english and understandable by laypersons, and usually very well written.
- throw7 8y agoGorsuch's dissent is straightforward english and lays out his thoughts and what he thinks is also a possible way forward. I only skimmed through the prior dissents and decision though.
- jeffdavis 8y agoAlthough my initial reaction was to strongly agree with the decision, I find the dissents much more interesting and Gorsuch's analysis compelling. This case may have made a mess of things. Maybe the right answer here is for Congress to clarify what the digital equivalent of a safe deposit box is.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago"As technology has enhanced the Government’s capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes, this Court has sought to 'assure[ ] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.' Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34 (2001)." This is a sensibly balanced way of thinking about the Fourth Amendment.
- subtlefart 8y agoI would be ok with fishing with CSLI data for crime sprees and other applications. The shit part about this is that this ruling is going to be very visible and people are going to try to make this data useless.
- ereli1 8y agoCan someone explain why a warrant under the federal Stored Communications Act is easier to obtain?
- advisedwang 8y agoThe order under the SCA is not a warrent, and doesn't have the same standard of proof. Specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2703 means the government can request location information [1] with a court order as described by (d). The standard for the court order is "reasonable grounds to believe that the contents ... are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation". reasonable grounds << probable cause [1] under (c)(1)(D) as the cell location is not ljisted (c)(2)
- ereli1 8y agothat's interesting, but one could assume that if some member of a gang points out the leader of the gang to the police, the court would allow them to employ surveillance techniques needed to acquire evidence. Wouldn't that kind of information be sufficient to pass the Probable Cause test?
- pcarolan 8y agoDoes anyone know if and how this would affect cellphone companies who sell location data to data brokers? http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-verizon-location-data-20180619-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-verizon-location-data-... You practically can't opt of this or are often unaware given the complexity of an average app's TOS.
- JoblessWonder 8y agoThe decision seems to be pretty narrowly focused on law enforcement and rules of evidence, so it shouldn't stop practice from continuing.
- econochoice 8y agoHow would this affect law enforcements ability to use data they bought from telcos?
- JoblessWonder 8y agoIANAL, but the way I read it they would not be able to use that data without a warrant, which will likely mean that law enforcement will no longer be paying for a third party when they could just use the warrant to get it directly from the telcos. (Unless the telcos don't have historical data but a third party does? Either way, a warrant would be required to gather that data without risking jeopardizing the entire case.)
- jeffdavis 8y agoWhy isn't there some kind of "privileged access" test? If the third party gives the information to anyone upon request, it should be considered less private than if the police need to "ask" for it. Not in an absolute sense. A concerned citizen might want to be helpful to police by providing them lots of information, and that shouldn't need a warrant. But it seems like a pretty strong signal that, if the police are asking for it, it is more likely to be private.
- Animats 8y agoThey didn't go so far as to overrule Smith, the ""pen register" decision, where the court held that dial digits are a "business record" of the telephone company. That 1979 decision mentions the pen register's "limited capabilities" - the device was just not suitable for bulk surveillance. This decision mentions Smith, but the court didn't overrule it. I own a "pen register". Recently bought it on eBay and restored it. It's a brass clockwork device on a cast-iron base in a wooden box. It prints dashes on a paper tape when connected to a dial phone line. It's extremely simple - one electromagnet and a wind-up mechanism, wound with a huge brass key, to advance the tape. A dial pulse starts the clockwork, a lever pushes the paper tape into an ink roller for each dial pulse, and when the input hasn't changed for four seconds, the clockwork stops. The timing mechanism is similar to Edison's stock ticker from the 1880s. Weighs about 15 pounds. It's a nice looking piece of machinery. That's what cops had to use for most of the 20th century. Telcos themselves did not log call data except for long distance calls. Electromechanical switches had no large data storage devices. A pen register had to be physically connected to a single phone line, usually in a telephone central office. Someone had to check on it frequently and wind it. No way could those things be used for bulk surveillance. Hence the court's holding as to its "limited capabilities". The legal system has trouble with scale. Today, every transaction a phone has with the switch is logged to a hard drive for nearly zero cost. Data logged per call has increased by many orders of magnitude since the days of the pen register and the Smith decision. But the court has not seen fit to overrule Smith. Yet.
- tinus_hn 8y agoIf they did not log call data, how did they charge it? Or did they only offer unlimited plans?
- zaroth 8y agoI wish they had gone further. In the modern age the concept of data hosted or stored with a “third party” is no longer useful in its entirety. It’s questionable to me that where the bits are stored is even a relevant component of a multi-prong test, let alone an overriding factor. The way the bits are accessed is certainly relevant but the location of the network attached hard-drive should have absolutely zero bearing. This would have squared up well with the issue of offshore data warrants which got punted off the docket after new legislation was enacted to provide a compromise solution to that specific issue. In any case, a great step in the right direction.
- anarazel 8y ago> I wish they had gone further. In the modern age the concept of data hosted or stored with a “third party” is no longer useful in its entirety. ISTM that that's much more a task for the legislative branch than SCOTUS. Now congress is also defunct to a significant degree, but there's some limits to what you can infer from the constitution... > The way the bits are accessed is certainly relevant but the location of the network attached hard-drive should have absolutely zero bearing. Hm, but that's not really the question, is it? Email contents, and likely online storage contents, already has a warrant requirement.
- forapurpose 8y agoThe NY Times coverage says it's very limited. Roberts wrote: “We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party" IIRC the current 4th amendment interpretation, 'third party doctrine' says that is a rare situation. However, Roberts also wrote: “While the third-party doctrine applies to telephone numbers and bank records, it is not clear whether its logic extends to the qualitatively different category of cell-site records,” he wrote. “After all, when Smith was decided in 1979, few could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person’s movements.” “When the government tracks the location of a cell phone,” the chief justice wrote, “it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.” Also, this seemingly ignorant comment from Kennedy (i.e., it seems a meaningless distinction), though he's not quoted and a brief summary so it is prone to misunderstanding: In dissent, Justice Kennedy wrote that GPS devices provide much more precise location information than do cell towers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court...
- s2g 8y agoDisgusting that it only passed 5-4.
- howard941 8y agoAs did yesterday's decision overruling the 80s decision requiring physical presence in a state to collect sales tax. Someone reneged on his promise to avoid 5-4 splits.
- dak1 8y agoI'm somewhat heartened that 6 Justices were in agreement that cell records should be protected from warrantless lookups. Gorsuch appears to have dissented because he disagreed with the rationale of the decision and felt the 4th Amendment protections should be far stronger.
- benchaney 8y ago> Gorsuch appears to have dissented because he disagreed with the rationale of the decision and felt the 4th Amendment protections should be far stronger. In that case why did he write a dissent and not a concurring opinion? Isn't that what they are for, or have I misunderstood?
- jessaustin 8y agoIt's my impression that Supreme Court justices write their opinions however the hell they want... as a practical matter if the votes were going the other way he probably would have written a "dissenting concurrence" rather than a "concurring dissent".
- mosheroperandi 8y agoSometimes. The reason he voted against is because he's so aggressively trying to rearchitect the past several decades of 4th amendment jurisprudence that the defendant would have needed to include a very different set of arguments to meet his standards. Gorsuch states that there's a good chance these records are "papers" that the defendant has at least some property interest in, but that the defendant failed to properly raise this argument and therefore waved it by default (so Gorsuch must decide against). He then basically ends with a plea for future defendants to include a set of arguments based on his preferred property-centric regime so he can decide in their favor.
- wpdev_63 8y agoO like the faceless judges that grant thousands of warrants? There's no accountability and it's absolutely criminal. https://youtu.be/yVwAodrjZMY?t=7m31s https://youtu.be/yVwAodrjZMY?t=7m31s
- USANEEDSHELP 8y agoThere should be another ruling. 3 letter agencies should also need a warrant to track cell phones too. Basically, this ruling means nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are being tracked without our permission & the police can probably get as much info from the US government agencies by just asking for it.
- fareesh 8y ago"Secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" is the text of the amendment so my guess is this counts as persons? Didn't get a chance to read the judgement
- jimbofisher1 8y agoI believe in another decision they extended the idea that a Phone is becoming part of a person.
- maxk42 8y agoThat's silly. A phone is clearly papers. Paper has become digital.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rehemiau 8y agoTitle: which world country are we talking about? Oh, right... ;)
- 0x86DD_ 8y agoThe ethical side of this discussion in Law Enforcement is a never-ending debate.
- vermooten 8y ago... in the US.
- getcrunk 8y agoDoes this even matter knowing that police can just purchase location data from carriers like we recently found out (securus) ?
- daveheq 8y agoWow, something that makes sense. Fair for the average citizen. I can't believe it.
- craigc 8y agoWhile I am happy about this ruling, I feel like it does not go far enough at protecting our privacy. Call me cynical if you want, but there are two things that are causes for concern for me. 1. The article says “Roberts noted that the decision also allows for warrantless cell-tower location information searches in emergencies and for national security purposes.” This leaves the door open for any agency to claim that any historic GPS data was obtained for “national security purposes”. This is troublesome because if the government is abusing their power there is no way to hold them accountable since they do not have to explain the specific reasons for accessing the data if doing so will “compromise national security”. It is a bit of a loophole in my opinion. 2. Another article (https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-says-warrant-necessary-for-phone-location-data/ https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-says-warrant-necessa...) mentioned “While the decision sets a ruling for historical GPS data, the Supreme Court said it does not apply to security cameras, business records or real-time location tracking.” This means that any other data can still be obtained without a warrant under the CLOUD act which passed just a couple months ago. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect...
- anarazel 8y ago> 1. The article says “Roberts noted that the decision also allows for warrantless cell-tower location information searches in emergencies and for national security purposes.” FWIW, that's not how I read Robert's opinion. He said that this decision didn't decide those (at least partially because it wasn't the question presented). > This means that any other data can still be obtained without a warrant under the CLOUD act which passed just a couple months ago. Isn't the stored communications act much more meaningful than CLOUD here?
- jscipione 8y agoSo does this Supreme Court ruling mean that when the Oakland Police and FBI used a Stingray to locate an attempted murder suspect without a warrant their actions were illegal? We must hold the FBI accountable for their violation of the 4th Amendment. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/fbi-didnt-need-warrant-for-stingray-in-attempted-murder-case-doj-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/fbi-didnt-need-w...
- March_f6 8y agoThird-party doctrine has been on borrowed time since at least Jones with Sotomayor's concurrence. Carpenter paves the way for moving the legal understanding of privacy beyond narrow property talk and the ill-suited third-party doctrine.