3 ms·

This is the same reason I find disclosure of geolocation data collected outside a call without a warrant to be an unreasonable search.

by Aloha 13y ago

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
  I would argue that the e911 data is not a voluntary disclosure. The cellular companies were compelled to generate and provide this information, as well as generate and store hordes of other information to assist law enforcement. In short, I don't think the government should be able to compel a company to store a class of data about its users, then because now they are holding it (at the behest of the government), then strip the data of privacy and compel the cellular companies to provide it to law enforcement. I don't find a substantial difference between the police planting a tracking device on your vehicle, and requesting geolocation data records for your mobile phone, they achieve largely same goals, thru only what I consider marginally different means - meaning, both should require a warrant. The exception to that would be geolocation data that is generated as part of making a phone call. I want to hold the line on what can be monitored to the era before always on mobile communications devices. Just because the data is there, does not mean it should be able to be gotten without a warrant.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    i think I find your reasoning flawed, as a matter of personal opinion at least. > Who you called, who called you, how long you talked - this stuff, which is otherwise known as call detail records it available to nearly everyone who works for the telco and is not really what I would consider private. I see what you're saying, as applied by the Smith v MD, that the information in a PEN register is fair game, but even in Smith, the collection of records had to be manual, which prevented its collection and use en masse, meaning that its application was self-limiting. Sure, the police could probably collect all the PEN registers, but as most of it would be useless, why would they? Regarding your earlier statement though, for some perspective, had the British been able to keep tabs on the metadata of the populace, our founding fathers would have all been hanged for treason, and America would never have declared independence. I don't mean to suggest that being subjects of Britain would be necessarily bad, but I think it's fair to suggest that our founding fathers considered their actions just, and as a matter of course, would have likely considered actions that would have resulted in their death equally unjust. If you agree, I think that should have some bearing on your interpretation of the fourth amendment.
    - Aloha 13y ago
      The collection of records has not been manual since sometime in the 80's - the switch can generate a report of all this data. But I get the point. I think metadata alone is useless - it gives you associations, not content, you could be calling someone not very nice to talk about the fact that they owe you money for work you did on their car - or about blowing something up. All this metadata is useful for is generating leads for traditional police work (aka shoe leather) to follow up on and dig up information the old fashioned way.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        I'm confused as to why you'd be against the collection of GPS metadata then. GPS data is, effectively, only associative metadata. It can tell you where you were, and when you were there, but not what you were doing. That's why I'm having a hard time finding consistency in your position. That isn't meant as judgement of you, by any means... the entire issue is a morass. We want law enforcement agencies to be effective (assuming that we're not acting criminally), but we don't want them to be overseers. I personally think that the precedent is for us to err on the side of liberty over justice, and I think that in the spirit of presumption of innocence and all that, but that's influenced by confirmation bias, at the least.

This is the same reason I find disclosure of geolocation data collected outside a call without a warrant to be an unreasonable search.

by 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
I would argue that the e911 data is not a voluntary disclosure. The cellular companies were compelled to generate and provide this information, as well as generate and store hordes of other information to assist law enforcement. In short, I don't think the government should be able to compel a company to store a class of data about its users, then because now they are holding it (at the behest of the government), then strip the data of privacy and compel the cellular companies to provide it to law enforcement. I don't find a substantial difference between the police planting a tracking device on your vehicle, and requesting geolocation data records for your mobile phone, they achieve largely same goals, thru only what I consider marginally different means - meaning, both should require a warrant. The exception to that would be geolocation data that is generated as part of making a phone call. I want to hold the line on what can be monitored to the era before always on mobile communications devices. Just because the data is there, does not mean it should be able to be gotten without a warrant.
- bmelton 13y ago
  i think I find your reasoning flawed, as a matter of personal opinion at least. > Who you called, who called you, how long you talked - this stuff, which is otherwise known as call detail records it available to nearly everyone who works for the telco and is not really what I would consider private. I see what you're saying, as applied by the Smith v MD, that the information in a PEN register is fair game, but even in Smith, the collection of records had to be manual, which prevented its collection and use en masse, meaning that its application was self-limiting. Sure, the police could probably collect all the PEN registers, but as most of it would be useless, why would they? Regarding your earlier statement though, for some perspective, had the British been able to keep tabs on the metadata of the populace, our founding fathers would have all been hanged for treason, and America would never have declared independence. I don't mean to suggest that being subjects of Britain would be necessarily bad, but I think it's fair to suggest that our founding fathers considered their actions just, and as a matter of course, would have likely considered actions that would have resulted in their death equally unjust. If you agree, I think that should have some bearing on your interpretation of the fourth amendment.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    The collection of records has not been manual since sometime in the 80's - the switch can generate a report of all this data. But I get the point. I think metadata alone is useless - it gives you associations, not content, you could be calling someone not very nice to talk about the fact that they owe you money for work you did on their car - or about blowing something up. All this metadata is useful for is generating leads for traditional police work (aka shoe leather) to follow up on and dig up information the old fashioned way.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I'm confused as to why you'd be against the collection of GPS metadata then. GPS data is, effectively, only associative metadata. It can tell you where you were, and when you were there, but not what you were doing. That's why I'm having a hard time finding consistency in your position. That isn't meant as judgement of you, by any means... the entire issue is a morass. We want law enforcement agencies to be effective (assuming that we're not acting criminally), but we don't want them to be overseers. I personally think that the precedent is for us to err on the side of liberty over justice, and I think that in the spirit of presumption of innocence and all that, but that's influenced by confirmation bias, at the least.