3 ms·
I listened to the arguments, here's my notes live: -- One justice asked petitioner that because 'If you don't want the government to have your location history
by fusslo 5mo ago
I listened to the arguments, here's my notes live:
--
One justice asked petitioner that because 'If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You dont have to have that feature on your phone. so whats the issue?'
They continue to talk about the Terms of Service stating that Google will comply with legitimate government requests. And both the petitioner and justices seem to agree that ANY data would be then up for grabs by the government (without a warrant) if it is stored in the cloud (including email, docs, photos, calendar, business records, etc). Sotomayor points out that the government would need NO warrant to access these records.
The google feature doesn't exist anymore. But in the amicus brief some 30 providers still have features in similar pattern of record storage. 'Google can track you down to 3 feet'. Google had to search "500 million" accounts for the search in question.
Justice Jackson asks why they aren't looking at the case as a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? The petitioner agrees, and points out that the data is protected by a password. So the data is NOT public.
"Data on the network is property." - how we get laws against stealing data/trespassing data
Probable Cause was an interesting argument. about 90 minutes in. It went by too quickly. The justice seems to say that google's servers are one 'place'. The justice also sees the output of 3 people despite google 'searching' 19 people as the only people who matter.
Responder is leaning heavy into the 'consent' for google to store location history. Is it possible to turn location history off on modern android phones? Responder also argues that because you're in public AT SOME POINT, then your location data is no different than a cctv data pointing at the street. Then a justice interrupts to make the responder say that YES the government CAN perform these searches on anyone it wants any time it wants without a warrant. For example people who seek abortion, or were at a political event. And the responder agrees!
Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail, where location is different because people are 'constantly advertising' their location to google.
To me, the responder is arguing two things:
1. That whatever you do in public is always available without a warrant
2. Your location history stored in google (or others) are generated in public and are therefore don't require a warrant.
Responder says location records are records google creates on your phone. Justice asks why no one of the 500M people who were searched have complained? (idk, maybe because we have no way of knowing we were searched?)
- vel0city 5mo ago> The justice seems to say that google's servers are one 'place'. So a large apartment tower housing, I dunno, thousands, of families can entirely be searched because it's just "one place"? Chances are this even multiple buildings, so really more like a whole apartment complex. Sorry, someone in building 56 was maybe selling drugs, we're here to dig through your wardrobe even though you're in building 12 half a block away..." They might as well apply for warrants as "Sol 3, Earth".
- magicalist 5mo ago> And both the petitioner and justices seem to agree that ANY data would be then up for grabs by the government (without a warrant) if it is stored in the cloud (including email, docs, photos, calendar, business records, etc). You must have misheard this as this is not true country wide (see US v Warshak) and in practice the government treats these as needing a warrant because of that and the time requirement in the Stored Communications Act (and any major provider will explicitly refuse handing over content data without a warrant). Gorsuch in particular thinks the Third Party Doctrine is bullshit and is happy to write that down (like in Carpenter) and today seemed to be trotting that out again (though I only read the beginning of arguments).
- fusslo 5mo agoNo, I did not. Listen for yourself. Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.
- magicalist 5mo agoI'll wait for the transcript but happy to listen if you have a timestamp. > Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed. You said the opposite: > Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail From Orin Kerr's live tweets (Feigin for DOJ, Unikowsky for Chatrie) of what I believe you were summarizing there: > Barrett: I'm concerned with your position being maximalist, too. Calendars, photos, email. And monitoring of homes. Are you conceding this would be a search? > Feigin: Warrant is needed for calendars, photos, email. [OK comments: Virtual lockers]. Not conceding homes. ... > Finally, Unikowksy rebuttal: We welcome the government's concession as to calendars, photos. But I don't understand how they distinguish that from this. https://bsky.app/profile/orinkerr.bsky.social/post/3mkigsbw6xk2h https://bsky.app/profile/orinkerr.bsky.social/post/3mkigsbw6... https://xcancel.com/OrinKerr/status/2048793893420875849#m https://xcancel.com/OrinKerr/status/2048793893420875849#m