5 ms·

Supreme Court (Carpenter v. United States) says otherwise.

pc86 6y ago
As another comment stated, this is only for CSLI data. Tracking data from a different third party is still fair game, and that's what the IRS was/is using.
rhacker 6y ago
It's ridiculous that our best reference for what is legal or not is a supreme court ruling these days.
- gpm 6y ago
  That's... Always been the case?
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    Why bother putting laws in writing?
    - gpm 6y ago
      Because that's what the courts rule based on, it's just that the initial version of the writing (the legislation) is often ambiguous so the courts add more writing over time.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Why bother putting laws in writing? For reference and consistency. The same reason judicial decisions (especially appellate ones) applying those laws are also put in writing, and the same reason that such decisions are binding on lower courts, and considered persuasive though not binding authority for other courts in applying the same law.
- ska 6y ago
  That's kind of the point of a supreme court; the realization that it's impossible to get all of this stuff right in a legislative body and someone has to resolve the conflicts.
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    No dude, that's the point of having written laws. Since Hammurabi.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      And when those written laws are unconstitutional? That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches. This is correct, but not intended to be the source of law(1). In fact, Supreme Court decisions aren't a law per se, but a deterrent in creating legally questionable situations. (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law, but the deterrent is significantly weaker in practice than a written law as it's scrutinized more closely as a matter of interpretation, court makeup, and public opinion.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        > (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law Minor nitpick: Not all decisions can be overridden by law. Cases dealing with constitutionality particularly. If the Supreme Court says something is a Constitutional right, only two things can overturn it: (1) a Constitutional Amendment, and (2) another Supreme Court decision[a]. [a] Brown v. Board, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson[b] [b] Well, not exactly. They didn’t say they were overturning that decision, but it made the old one moot by saying the opposite of it (leading to the same result).
- sagarm 6y ago
  The United States has a common law system, which relies heavily l heavily on court precedent. https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-system.page#:~:text=What%20Is%20Common%20Law%3F&text=The%20American%20system%20is%20a,of%20the%20matter%20before%20it https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-....
t-writescode 6y ago
Wasn’t the point of their comment “that give that data willingly”? If a company is constantly giving tips by choice, why wouldn’t the government be allowed to use it? Is the law written in such a way that the government can’t politely ask / be snitched to? I thought everything was fair game if a polite request was made and accepted. I completely disagree with what they should be allowed to ask politely for; but, isn’t that the state of the world?

pc86 6y ago

As another comment stated, this is only for CSLI data. Tracking data from a different third party is still fair game, and that's what the IRS was/is using.

rhacker 6y ago

It's ridiculous that our best reference for what is legal or not is a supreme court ruling these days.

gpm 6y ago
That's... Always been the case?
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  Why bother putting laws in writing?
  - gpm 6y ago
    Because that's what the courts rule based on, it's just that the initial version of the writing (the legislation) is often ambiguous so the courts add more writing over time.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Why bother putting laws in writing? For reference and consistency. The same reason judicial decisions (especially appellate ones) applying those laws are also put in writing, and the same reason that such decisions are binding on lower courts, and considered persuasive though not binding authority for other courts in applying the same law.
ska 6y ago
That's kind of the point of a supreme court; the realization that it's impossible to get all of this stuff right in a legislative body and someone has to resolve the conflicts.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  No dude, that's the point of having written laws. Since Hammurabi.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    And when those written laws are unconstitutional? That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches. This is correct, but not intended to be the source of law(1). In fact, Supreme Court decisions aren't a law per se, but a deterrent in creating legally questionable situations. (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law, but the deterrent is significantly weaker in practice than a written law as it's scrutinized more closely as a matter of interpretation, court makeup, and public opinion.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        > (1)A Supreme Court decision is made moot by legislation, as per any law Minor nitpick: Not all decisions can be overridden by law. Cases dealing with constitutionality particularly. If the Supreme Court says something is a Constitutional right, only two things can overturn it: (1) a Constitutional Amendment, and (2) another Supreme Court decision[a]. [a] Brown v. Board, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson[b] [b] Well, not exactly. They didn’t say they were overturning that decision, but it made the old one moot by saying the opposite of it (leading to the same result).
sagarm 6y ago
The United States has a common law system, which relies heavily l heavily on court precedent. https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-system.page#:~:text=What%20Is%20Common%20Law%3F&text=The%20American%20system%20is%20a,of%20the%20matter%20before%20it https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-....

t-writescode 6y ago

Wasn’t the point of their comment “that give that data willingly”? If a company is constantly giving tips by choice, why wouldn’t the government be allowed to use it? Is the law written in such a way that the government can’t politely ask / be snitched to? I thought everything was fair game if a polite request was made and accepted. I completely disagree with what they should be allowed to ask politely for; but, isn’t that the state of the world?