Supreme Court to rule on cellphone location privacy

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico



By JOSH GERSTEIN 06/05/2017 10:19 AM EDT

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide how much privacy Americans are entitled to in cellphone tracking data that can reflect their location and movement.

The justices announced Monday that they will rule on whether a search warrant should be required before authorities obtain information from mobile-phone companies that can reflect a user's approximate movements in the past. The method traces which phone tower a device was connected to and which set of antennas on the tower were used.

The case was brought by a man convicted in a string of armed robberies in Michigan based on "cell site location information" the FBI obtained with a court order, but without a warrant requiring probable cause. The Trump administration had urged the justices not to hear the case, which will likely be argued in the fall, but civil liberties and privacy advocates encouraged the court to take up the issue.

Lower courts have generally ruled that a warrant is not required for such data because it is voluntarily shared by users with third parties, namely the telephone companies. Critics say the precedents behind those decisions are outdated in light of the realities of life in the digital age.

###

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/supreme-court-to-rule-on-cellphone-location-privacy-239136

[SoCalNative]

1. I din't have a lot of sympathy

for someone who has committed and been convicted of a crime.

[melm00se]

2. sounds awfully close to the

"if you have nothing to hide..." justification

[SoCalNative]

3. Not really, no

If you have been conviceted of and admitted to a crime, I don't think that you have much course to cry foul

[ret5hd]

4. Well, paraphrasing Larry Flint...

If the law protects even me, the law protects everyone.

[NYC Liberal]

8. A) This doesn't only affect people who committed crimes.

B) The FBI was doing this before anyone was convicted.

It's not about sympathy. It's about the fact that the government/police shouldn't be allowed to track your cell phone's location (in real time, no less) without a warrant, which is the issue here.

[SoCalNative]

9. Would you feel the same way

if in them doing so it prevented a major terrorist attack?

[NYC Liberal]

10. It's not about not allowing it at all;

it's about requiring a warrant.

Yes, a warrant should be required. Or should we just scrap the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights altogether because of terrorism?

[Midnight Writer]

16. If the information was provided voluntarily, how is that different from questioning a witness?

Law enforcement folk do not need a warrant to canvass and question potential witnesses.

If the witness is forced to give the information, then a warrant should be required.

[NYC Liberal]

17. This isn't talking to witnesses, who can decline.

This is a search of data on a server. SCOTUS already ruled that police need a warrant to track people via GPS monitors on cars.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yes. The 'Ticking bomb' argument has literally been used to justify torturing people.

Has it ever revealed intel that saved 'the day'? Ever? Outside a Hollywood sound stage?

[7962]

12. what about if youre calling for help & cant tell them where you are?

Does this apply to 911 operators using the "triangulation" method to pinpoint where you are (or pretty darn close)? I wouldnt want to wait on a warrant for that

[NYC Liberal]

13. No. You call 911, you're volunteering that.

This is about police investigating crimes.

[7962]

18. Ok got it.

[LanternWaste]

14. You're in luck... no one at all is asking for sympathy

You're in luck... no one at all is asking for sympathy in regards to this criminal; only to perceive the broader questions it brings.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. It's such esoteric technology

they're going to use it anyway. What is that called? Reconstructing the crime
from other data?

"voluntarily shared"? Does the user have a choice? All the legalese when signing up
for a cell phone? That's a contract with a private company, not the government.

I'd bet the Supreme Court sides with obtaining a warrant on this one. They still show
some semblance of not delving into private lives, homes, minds, notes.

[DK504]

6. Yeah, my faith in the SCROTUS doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

" ... that they will rule on whether a search warrant should be required before authorities obtain information from mobile-phone companies that can reflect a user's approximate movements in the past."

Gee ya' think our movements are a matter of privacy? Such a playground for abuse by the entire gubmint.

[MedusaX]

7. How long before this 'locational tracking history' data is being sold? The implications for future

unintended abuses to occur should be of utmost concern...
Once people are conditioned to give up their collective rights, to privacy or any others, in exchange for perceived enhancements in safety, authoritarianism can & will take hold disguised as 'law and order'.

[still_one]

15. It is an interesting issue. Is there an expectation of privacy if someone has their cell phone

turned on? Does their location data deserve fourth Amendment protection?

By turning on your cell phone do you acknowledge that your data location is public?

[LeftInTX]

19. An opposite take on this issue:

There was a woman who went missing in the Seattle area.

The investigators could not obtain cell phone records because they required a warrant.

After much legal wrangling, they obtained a warrant and got the records.

Her car had gone off an embankment.

Fortunately, after a week, she was still alive.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/us/29missing.html