4 ms·
The very first holding of the majority opinion by Kagan: Held: Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data f
by twoodfin 4mo ago
The very first holding of the majority opinion by Kagan:
Held: Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they
acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.
Note the possessive “his”. Crucial to the case, this was held to be the individual’s data, not the third-party’s.
- estearum 4mo agoWhy would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty much by-default. This is the relevant bit: In Carpenter, this Court held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements,” 585 U. S., at 310. The Court reasoned that CSLI provides a “detailed” and “encyclopedic” portrait of a person’s whereabouts, id., at 309, and, with that, “an intimate window into a person’s life,” id., at 311. Because people “compulsively carry” their cell phones “all the time,” the Court explained, a cell phone “tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner,” and thus “faithfully follows” him not only through “public thoroughfares [but] into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales.”
- twoodfin 4mo agoChatrie was about Google’s personal location tracking feature in Android, not about carrier tower records.
- estearum 4mo agoWhich is also irrelevant There's nothing special about any particular technology at all. The question is whether people have an option to generate the data for a third party (Google, Flock, or cell tower operators) and then the sensitivity of that resulting data. Carpenter is pretty simple: If you by virtue of existing in the modern world produce a bunch of super sensitive data that third parties now have, then those third parties aren't allowed to just give the government that data.
- iamnothere 4mo agoYou mean to tell me I can’t just find a loophole to get around the intent of the law? But what about my profits??!?
- stickfigure 4mo agoThis question seems preposterous on its face. If you walk around in public wearing a t-shirt with text on it, there's a reasonable expectation that people will read it. Specifically because it reflects light.
- estearum 4mo agoThis is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.
- stickfigure 4mo agoNo, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.
- estearum 4mo agoNope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
- stickfigure 4mo agoI'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.
- iamnothere 4mo agoNot if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.
- 4mo ago
- AnimalMuppet 4mo agoI'm not sure that's quite as clear as you say it is. It could be "his" as in "about the person" rather than "belonging to the person".
- twoodfin 4mo agoThe Fourth Amendment covers exclusively “their persons, houses, papers, and effects” so it has to be one of those.
- estearum 4mo agoThis is not true. For example, this would allow the government to wiretap anyone without warrant. Katz v United States would be the place to start your research.