6 ms·

The supreme court had a 5-4 decision related to this [1]. Was there something specific, in that decision, that leaves a loophole open? [1] https://www.supremec

by nomel 7mo ago

The supreme court had a 5-4 decision related to this [1]. Was there something specific, in that decision, that leaves a loophole open? [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

46493168 7mo ago
[flagged]
- nomel 7mo ago
  The three letter agencies have a long history of ignoring the constitution, long before the Trump administration, going back to their inception, including as recent as the Biden administration [1]. [1] https://ij.org/press-release/fbi-caught-trying-to-sweep-its-violation-of-constitutional-rights-under-the-rug/ https://ij.org/press-release/fbi-caught-trying-to-sweep-its-... edit: downvoters, is this not true? this is a historic problem with the agencies. This doesn't mean it's not also a problem with this administration. Two things can be true at once. I like pancakes and waffles.
  - jfengel 7mo ago
    This administration has also expressed an interest in using that information to persecute citizens. Every administration needs to deal with the conflict of protection versus privacy. They all do things that privacy advocates wish they didn't. But not since the early 70s has one been so explicit that it wants to use the justice system to punish their enemies, without even the pretense of a criminal charge. So I think you're being downvoted over the perception of both-sidesism.
- edm0nd 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dare944 7mo ago
    Or... kinda like... not the same technique at all, since Congress can legally change the size of the Supreme Court but Trump can't legally ignore its rulings.
  - Permit 7mo ago
    > kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way. Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
    - Jtsummers 7mo ago
      Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
    - darknavi 7mo ago
      Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
      - Jtsummers 7mo ago
        When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
  - bonsai_spool 7mo ago
    > kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way. > I hate how weaponized each side is. To be clear, one of these things has happened. The other has been hyped on Fox News. It is really a stretch to "Both Sides" this issue.
shimman 7mo ago
Yeah, the loophole is always "national security" and SCOTUS doesn't enforce the law.
mogwire 7mo ago
> Carpenter v. United States (2018) was a landmark Supreme Court case that held the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from cell phone carriers, as its acquisition constitutes a Fourth Amendment search This is very different from buying your data from a company especially when the user consented to their location being tracked. Too many people in these threads jumping to anti-Trump when the real issue is how quick we are to give up our our privacy to use technology and then quickly turn to shock in anger when it’s used against us.
- ranger_danger 7mo ago
  Why is it different though? Who gets to say so? If the SCOTUS case merely said "needs a warrant to access historical data"... it didn't say "only if acquired via specific means" (like a subpoena), right?
  - mogwire 7mo ago
    > The Court ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the detailed, comprehensive record of their movements that CSLI provides, even though they share it with their carriers. This decision limited the "third-party doctrine," which previously suggested no privacy rights in information shared with third parties, and established that the unique nature of cell phone data requires greater protection. Additionally, the decision was narrow, applying specifically to historical CSLI. The issue of buying location data from a 3rd party company as part of a service has not been argued. > the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people’s data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information — including location data — from ordinary consumer phone apps and games This is completely different from CSLI, you are agreeing to provide your location to these apps and games, as most require it, and, finally, a majority of these EULA state that the data may be shared with 3rd parties. SCOTUS makes narrow rulings all the time and this is one of them. The argument that you are expressly providing your location information and agreeing that it can/will be shared with a 3rd party who can then do as they please with your data is not a violation of the 4th amendment and will be excluded from the 3rd party doctrine. Many people won’t agree with this, and if ever argued in a court, they won’t agree with the ruling when it’s allowed to continue.

by nomel 7mo ago

46493168 7mo ago

[flagged]

nomel 7mo ago
The three letter agencies have a long history of ignoring the constitution, long before the Trump administration, going back to their inception, including as recent as the Biden administration [1]. [1] https://ij.org/press-release/fbi-caught-trying-to-sweep-its-violation-of-constitutional-rights-under-the-rug/ https://ij.org/press-release/fbi-caught-trying-to-sweep-its-... edit: downvoters, is this not true? this is a historic problem with the agencies. This doesn't mean it's not also a problem with this administration. Two things can be true at once. I like pancakes and waffles.
- jfengel 7mo ago
  This administration has also expressed an interest in using that information to persecute citizens. Every administration needs to deal with the conflict of protection versus privacy. They all do things that privacy advocates wish they didn't. But not since the early 70s has one been so explicit that it wants to use the justice system to punish their enemies, without even the pretense of a criminal charge. So I think you're being downvoted over the perception of both-sidesism.
edm0nd 7mo ago
[flagged]
- dare944 7mo ago
  Or... kinda like... not the same technique at all, since Congress can legally change the size of the Supreme Court but Trump can't legally ignore its rulings.
- Permit 7mo ago
  > kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way. Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
  - Jtsummers 7mo ago
    Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
  - darknavi 7mo ago
    Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
    - Jtsummers 7mo ago
      When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
- bonsai_spool 7mo ago
  > kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way. > I hate how weaponized each side is. To be clear, one of these things has happened. The other has been hyped on Fox News. It is really a stretch to "Both Sides" this issue.

shimman 7mo ago

Yeah, the loophole is always "national security" and SCOTUS doesn't enforce the law.

mogwire 7mo ago

> Carpenter v. United States (2018) was a landmark Supreme Court case that held the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from cell phone carriers, as its acquisition constitutes a Fourth Amendment search This is very different from buying your data from a company especially when the user consented to their location being tracked. Too many people in these threads jumping to anti-Trump when the real issue is how quick we are to give up our our privacy to use technology and then quickly turn to shock in anger when it’s used against us.

ranger_danger 7mo ago
Why is it different though? Who gets to say so? If the SCOTUS case merely said "needs a warrant to access historical data"... it didn't say "only if acquired via specific means" (like a subpoena), right?
- mogwire 7mo ago
  > The Court ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the detailed, comprehensive record of their movements that CSLI provides, even though they share it with their carriers. This decision limited the "third-party doctrine," which previously suggested no privacy rights in information shared with third parties, and established that the unique nature of cell phone data requires greater protection. Additionally, the decision was narrow, applying specifically to historical CSLI. The issue of buying location data from a 3rd party company as part of a service has not been argued. > the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people’s data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information — including location data — from ordinary consumer phone apps and games This is completely different from CSLI, you are agreeing to provide your location to these apps and games, as most require it, and, finally, a majority of these EULA state that the data may be shared with 3rd parties. SCOTUS makes narrow rulings all the time and this is one of them. The argument that you are expressly providing your location information and agreeing that it can/will be shared with a 3rd party who can then do as they please with your data is not a violation of the 4th amendment and will be excluded from the 3rd party doctrine. Many people won’t agree with this, and if ever argued in a court, they won’t agree with the ruling when it’s allowed to continue.