While 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

While 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...