3 ms·
> You don't have any property right in phone metadata--it's the phone companies data collected for its own purposes. I'd disagree with that. It's my phone, an
by diminoten 12y ago
> You don't have any property right in phone metadata--it's the phone companies data collected for its own purposes.
I'd disagree with that. It's my phone, and the metadata collected by the phone company is done with my consent and under certain terms. If the terms change, I get to change my consent if I want.
It'd be like the FBI sneaking a bug into the lamp I bought at Lowes.
Obviously we're both not lawyers, so there's probably a whole bunch of stuff we're both missing (turns out law is hard).
- nickff 12y ago>Obviously we're both not lawyers rayiner is in the Northwestern law department, so he is likely to be a lawyer.
- harryh 12y agorayiner is actually a lawyer
- rayiner 12y agoThere is a difference between "your information" and "information about you." Not just a legal one, but a epistemological one. AT&T doesn't need your permission to keep track of requests on their network any more than Lowes needs your permission to keep track of who buys a lamp. That said, this is an issue where nitpicky legal and technical analysis is probably going to take a back-seat to politics. After Riley v. California, it seems quite possible that the Supreme Court is ready to say: "it doesn't matter that Mark Zuckerberg can see all your photos if he wants--the 4th amendment applies to the cloud because we want it to."
- diminoten 12y agoI agree, the prior rulings are mostly from the pre-internet days, and entirely from the pre-Facebook/AT&T metadata-used-to-track-folks days. I think the legal theory will change, but it's a good point that this specific ruling doesn't impact that theory.