6 ms·

I believe this gets to the crux of the argument. Broadly, I think there are two views on why the U.S. has laws regarding "unreasonable" search and seizure: a)

I believe this gets to the crux of the argument. Broadly, I think there are two views on why the U.S. has laws regarding "unreasonable" search and seizure: a) Being searched all is unreasonable because it inconveniences those being searched, takes up their time and involves a degree of forced submission. b) Being searched all the time is unreasonable because it grants the government too much power over the individual. The government should not be able to snoop into the lives of private citizens without good reason. True freedom and perfect enforcement of crime are incompatible. You can hold (a) or (b) or both. Digital searches happen quietly and invisibly, so is it OK to be constantly searched if it involves no personal inconvenience? I believe you hold mostly position (a), whereas those who believe this program is bad (including me) hold (a) and (b).

Aloha 13y ago
Correct. I largely hold position (a). I believe in position (b) as well, but there is a bar there, if something is above a certain level of invasion in invokes my belief in position (b) otherwise I consider it to be generally acceptable. Geolocation data is one of those things that invokes position (b) because I consider it to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
- jorgem 13y ago
  I just don't get it. Based on parent comments, you're ok with the government knowing WHO/WHEN you call someone. But you have a beef with the government knowing WHERE you called from? And your basis for that is that they've always been able to collect WHO/WHEN, but WHERE is different because it's new?
  - Aloha 13y ago
    The geolocation data is not tied to placing a call, the cell carriers keep and have a record wherever my mobile terminal is whenever its turned on and registered. Its tantamount to putting a GPS tracker on my person. This to me is a totally unreasonable encroachment on my right to privacy. The where attached to a placed call is a grey area for me. It's might be acceptable, it might not, because where is a given when using a landline.
- hbmnn 13y ago
  Cool arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing there.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    It's not really arbitrary - its based on what kind of monitoring you could do on a traditional telephone.
dalke 13y ago
Point (a) isn't sufficient to understand the 4th amendment. For example, the Supreme Court in Kyllo vs. U.S. decided that using a thermal imaging device to scan houses to find indoor marijuana farms is an unreasonable search, and reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing 100 marijuana plants. You'll easily note that scanning a house from the street does not inconvenience the person being searched, take up their time, or involve a degree of forced submission. For another example, the Supreme Court said that attaching a tracking device to a car without a warrant is also an illegal search. This also does not fit the criteria of (a). (While it immeasurably slightly worsens mileage, the court decided that it was a form of trespass. One does not need to be present in order for trespass to occur.) For a more historical example, Ex Parte Jackson (1878) says "Letters and sealed packages subject to letter postage in the mail can be opened and examined only under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be." Again, 4th Amendment protection of letters exists even when the conditions of (a) are not held.
- Aloha 13y ago
  This is the same reason I find disclosure of geolocation data collected outside a call without a warrant to be an unreasonable search.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Could you be more explicit on which reason is this "same reason"? I listed several reasons. Do you think law enforcement use of E911 pings without a warrant is trespass on your possessions, which was the reasoning behind the US vs Jones (2012) case I mentioned? In any case, United States v. Graham disagrees with you. Geolocation data is "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party" and so "ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection." What do you find wrong with the reasoning in the Graham ruling? In reviewing your other comments, it sounds like you also disagree with the conclusions of pages 47-56 of this most recent opinion by Judge Leon, where the judge describes how collection now is different than from a few decades ago, and in a manner that the Supreme Court has indicated other cases indicated may have substantial 4th amendment concerns. Why specifically do you disagree with the reasoning behind his opinions? Obviously US v. Graham (US District Court for Maryland) and Leon's opinion (US District Court for DC) are at odds. Leon points that out in his own opinion, on p66. It's going to take the Supreme Court (or a big change in the law) to sort this one out for the US.

Aloha 13y ago

Correct. I largely hold position (a). I believe in position (b) as well, but there is a bar there, if something is above a certain level of invasion in invokes my belief in position (b) otherwise I consider it to be generally acceptable. Geolocation data is one of those things that invokes position (b) because I consider it to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

jorgem 13y ago
I just don't get it. Based on parent comments, you're ok with the government knowing WHO/WHEN you call someone. But you have a beef with the government knowing WHERE you called from? And your basis for that is that they've always been able to collect WHO/WHEN, but WHERE is different because it's new?
- Aloha 13y ago
  The geolocation data is not tied to placing a call, the cell carriers keep and have a record wherever my mobile terminal is whenever its turned on and registered. Its tantamount to putting a GPS tracker on my person. This to me is a totally unreasonable encroachment on my right to privacy. The where attached to a placed call is a grey area for me. It's might be acceptable, it might not, because where is a given when using a landline.
hbmnn 13y ago
Cool arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing there.
- Aloha 13y ago
  It's not really arbitrary - its based on what kind of monitoring you could do on a traditional telephone.

dalke 13y ago

Point (a) isn't sufficient to understand the 4th amendment. For example, the Supreme Court in Kyllo vs. U.S. decided that using a thermal imaging device to scan houses to find indoor marijuana farms is an unreasonable search, and reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing 100 marijuana plants. You'll easily note that scanning a house from the street does not inconvenience the person being searched, take up their time, or involve a degree of forced submission. For another example, the Supreme Court said that attaching a tracking device to a car without a warrant is also an illegal search. This also does not fit the criteria of (a). (While it immeasurably slightly worsens mileage, the court decided that it was a form of trespass. One does not need to be present in order for trespass to occur.) For a more historical example, Ex Parte Jackson (1878) says "Letters and sealed packages subject to letter postage in the mail can be opened and examined only under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be." Again, 4th Amendment protection of letters exists even when the conditions of (a) are not held.

Aloha 13y ago
This is the same reason I find disclosure of geolocation data collected outside a call without a warrant to be an unreasonable search.
- dalke 13y ago
  Could you be more explicit on which reason is this "same reason"? I listed several reasons. Do you think law enforcement use of E911 pings without a warrant is trespass on your possessions, which was the reasoning behind the US vs Jones (2012) case I mentioned? In any case, United States v. Graham disagrees with you. Geolocation data is "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party" and so "ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection." What do you find wrong with the reasoning in the Graham ruling? In reviewing your other comments, it sounds like you also disagree with the conclusions of pages 47-56 of this most recent opinion by Judge Leon, where the judge describes how collection now is different than from a few decades ago, and in a manner that the Supreme Court has indicated other cases indicated may have substantial 4th amendment concerns. Why specifically do you disagree with the reasoning behind his opinions? Obviously US v. Graham (US District Court for Maryland) and Leon's opinion (US District Court for DC) are at odds. Leon points that out in his own opinion, on p66. It's going to take the Supreme Court (or a big change in the law) to sort this one out for the US.