Supreme Court: no government location tracking without a warrant


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/22/cellphones-are-different.html


#2

Well that is a bright spot in these unusally dark times.


#3

Still slim margins. Just because I allow a third party to monitor some of my information should absolutely not allow the government to get a hold of it without any due process. What a stupid argument.


#4

tumblr_inline_paha591Uny1vgsze8_540


#5

That sign is really in your yard isn’t it Cory? :slight_smile:


#6

oddly enough, gorsuch seems to have dissented because the majority didn’t go far enough in protecting the right to digital privacy. give a slightly different framing of a case in the future it’s possible there could be a 6-3 majority going farther.


#7

I would have expected more of the “originalists” to go that way too. I am positive that the framers of the constitution would have expected a warrant be provided before getting the full details of someone’s schedule. I guess they may be originalists only when convenient.


#8

NSA: 3rd parties? Who needs 3rd parties? You just tap right in!


#9

Wait! The right thing was done in this day and age?
There has to be a catch.
They get one more judge and they will be able to do anything they want.


#10


#11

BINGO.


#12

That’s why I’m glad Roberts is writing these opinions. Unlike Scalia, who wanted to resort to 18th-century metaphors when addressing modern technology, Roberts admits that there are no originalist analogues to technology the Founders couldn’t even have dreamed of. As a result, he engages with the technology on its merits. Anyone who claims to be an “originalist” with respect to modern technology is just being asinine. There’s no way to know what James Madison would have thought about historical cell site location tracking.


#13

I was just reading this Vox article which posits that it doesn’t really matter if the police need a warrant to do something, because they can automatically get one whenever they want, or give a flimsy excuse for failing to doing so, or intimidate you into “consenting” instead, and prosecutors can still use illegally-obtained evidence anyway.


#14

How can you enforce a warrant requirement to obtain something that is for sale on the open market and legal for any citizen to buy?

Real time location data is legal for carriers to sell in the US…

Is this decision just about making the gov’t buy it instead of getting it for free?


#15

Someplace that I would expect conservative and liberal justices to align - why did 4 justices vote against?


#16

reading through the dissents i came to the following conclusions–

kennedy argued that the fact of new technology which tracks individuals without their consent or control does not overcome the limitations of the katz requirements of a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is that because the information is held by a third party one has no reasonable expectation that such information will be kept private.

alito and thomas argue that the katz requirement of any information for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy must be obtained with a warrant is far to expansive and thus the court should have used this case as an opportunity to overturn the katz decision.

gorsuch seemed to be arguing that the majority did not go far enough in protecting online information from unreasonable searches.


#17

I guess the system, lumbering as always, does more or less work. This almost makes me happy.


#18

Just because they must have a warrant doesn’t mean they will have a warrant.


#19

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.