4 ms·

> it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspe

> it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspect because their location data was swept up in open-ended digital dragnet. This single ruling, does nothing to make me feel any better about this. Everyone can be swept up in "some digital dragnet" because everyone's data is everywhere, and it's impossible to manage without hauling off to the woods and disconnecting from the internet at large.

cryptonector 2y ago
This ruling is a huge step in the right direction. To gather all the data you speak of requires some entity (entities, really) -currently not the government- to gather it and then make it available for subpoenas and warrants, which would then fall [in the 5th circuit anyways, right now] under this precedent. The government could get into the business of building [under cover] popular apps so as to gather that data themselves, but that would take a great deal of time and money, and most importantly competence!
- sroussey 2y ago
  Or just pay a data broker.
- NegativeK 2y ago
  As the sibling comment points out, the government doesn't need a subpoena if companies hand over the data willingly (typically for a fee.) I can't see this being fixed until America decides that the rights to our identifying data can't be signed away.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    True. This ruling says you can't subpoena data. It doesn't say you can't buy it. The free market is an enormous whole in our privacy rights. At the same time, it's crazy that we ourselves put all of our data out there on the free market.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Even I said that in an earlier comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229845). Still, this is a step forward. The step might be to forbid the government bypassing legal protections by buying the data.
walrushunter 2y ago
Is it really essential? I don't feel like this ruling changes my chances of being falsely accused of a crime at all. All it really does is take away a tool police could use to find the right person.
- zo1 2y ago
  There is no reasoning with "privacy advocates" on this. Your argument is essentially "think of the children" to their ears and they're used to blocking it out categorically without thinking. No amount of "checks and balances" and "valid scenarios" will convince them otherwise. They've decided that their arbitrary notion of privacy is some sort of "human right" and will drag us all to hell because of it. In the meantime, they refuse to participate with lawmakers to tread a middle-ground so the laws end up being utterly draconian (see the EU stuff happening in real time) against ordinary citizens. Oh and don't even get me started on the kicker, whereby most of law-enforcement simply refuses to enforce and prosecute the bulk of uncomfortable crime they encounter (see the US and UK right now where they let criminals loose on their populace because they're afraid of the "optics"). I honestly don't know what kind of f-d up world we're leaving to our children. But they will judge us very harshly for it someday.

cryptonector 2y ago

This ruling is a huge step in the right direction. To gather all the data you speak of requires some entity (entities, really) -currently not the government- to gather it and then make it available for subpoenas and warrants, which would then fall [in the 5th circuit anyways, right now] under this precedent. The government could get into the business of building [under cover] popular apps so as to gather that data themselves, but that would take a great deal of time and money, and most importantly competence!

sroussey 2y ago
Or just pay a data broker.
NegativeK 2y ago
As the sibling comment points out, the government doesn't need a subpoena if companies hand over the data willingly (typically for a fee.) I can't see this being fixed until America decides that the rights to our identifying data can't be signed away.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  True. This ruling says you can't subpoena data. It doesn't say you can't buy it. The free market is an enormous whole in our privacy rights. At the same time, it's crazy that we ourselves put all of our data out there on the free market.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Even I said that in an earlier comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41229845). Still, this is a step forward. The step might be to forbid the government bypassing legal protections by buying the data.

walrushunter 2y ago

Is it really essential? I don't feel like this ruling changes my chances of being falsely accused of a crime at all. All it really does is take away a tool police could use to find the right person.

zo1 2y ago
There is no reasoning with "privacy advocates" on this. Your argument is essentially "think of the children" to their ears and they're used to blocking it out categorically without thinking. No amount of "checks and balances" and "valid scenarios" will convince them otherwise. They've decided that their arbitrary notion of privacy is some sort of "human right" and will drag us all to hell because of it. In the meantime, they refuse to participate with lawmakers to tread a middle-ground so the laws end up being utterly draconian (see the EU stuff happening in real time) against ordinary citizens. Oh and don't even get me started on the kicker, whereby most of law-enforcement simply refuses to enforce and prosecute the bulk of uncomfortable crime they encounter (see the US and UK right now where they let criminals loose on their populace because they're afraid of the "optics"). I honestly don't know what kind of f-d up world we're leaving to our children. But they will judge us very harshly for it someday.