Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

cnet ^ | 22 JUN 18 | Alfred Ng

[DCBryan1]

[apillar]

That’s rare. I actually find myself in agreement with the four liberals (and Roberts) who ruled that cell phone location data is protected by the 4th amendment. I wonder what the reasoning was for the conservative wing dissenting?

[Starboard]

This is not a game changer as warrants are freely issued.

[Reno89519]

Good. They need to make a few more. Like that our finger print to secure phone is just as respected as our password and requires a search warrant to use.

Further, can today's ruling be extended to protect all digital tracking information--your phone, your tablet, your car, electronic road passes, etc.?

[Labyrinthos]

One again, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion is clear and to the point:

“This case should not turn on “whether” a search occurred.
Ante, at 1. It should turn, instead, on whose
property was searched. The Fourth Amendment guarantees
individuals the right to be secure from unreasonable
searches of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
(Emphasis added.) In other words, “each person has the
right to be secure against unreasonable searches . . . in his
own person, house, papers, and effects.” Minnesota v.
Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 92 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring). By
obtaining the cell-site records of MetroPCS and Sprint, the
Government did not search Carpenter’s property. He did
not create the records, he does not maintain them, he
cannot control them, and he cannot destroy them. Neither
the terms of his contracts nor any provision of law makes
the records his. The records belong to MetroPCS and
Sprint.”

[TexasGurl24]

Agreed. One really needs to read the opinion of Justice Gorsuch as well. President Trump really did pick a good one.

[ifinnegan]

“This is not a game changer as warrants are freely issued.”

So people like Hillary won’t ever have the warrant issued against them.

[Jumper]

A warrant... So if I am your Fed, State, or local law enforcement might I utilize multiple mobile or fixed "phone antenna" to pick up your location, which would not require going to the PTTs? And might I listen in on what you say whether it is turned on or off? Dare say might I as Law Enforcement also track vehicles, combining phones with vehicles to question ownership for traffic stops... or the repeated proximity of said vehicles and phones together with other vehicles and phones to determine where you shop for drugs, sex, or robbery?

Now add your computer, your phone, your vehicle, your aftermarket GPS, even your old TV or radio antennas to the mix to locate people, track their movement, to prove their collusion in drug deals, prostitution, politically motivated riots or membership in Antifata, etc.

This is why after working for the USG in certain fields I never use a phone without a battery that can be removed, and I keep an old vehicle without OnStar or GPS.

[Alberta's Child]

I believe the conservative rationale is that you should have no expectation of privacy and security of information when you are using technology that puts your sensitive/secure information in the hands of a third party anyway.

[Reno89519]

I disagree with Thomas. Even if the records were collected and “belong” to someone else, I do think it is important to have search warrant before accessing. There are so many collections of our data which we are not aware of that should be respected. Your car tracks you, the road toll pass, the bank ATM (which you used, the pic of you showing your attire and if anyone with you, etc.), your online activity (bet there are plenty of tracking records about which site you have visited, pages, and so forth, much beyond Google and despite any blocking programs you might install). We should be protected and respected in all.

[Alberta's Child]

This sounds like a fascinating case, and I think Justice Thomas applies the law correctly.

[Enlightened1]

Big win!

[Alberta's Child]

This is one of those cases where I may not have liked the ramifications of the dissenting opinion but I believe that opinion is correct on the law.

[jiggyboy]

I asked on another thread why the phone company is the “third party” instead of the “second party” in what is a two-party transaction. If I am the “first party” and the phone company is the “third party”, who is the “second party”?

[Alberta's Child]

I have one app on my iPhone for my phone carrier. Every other app is produced, licensed and maintained by someone other than my phone carrier. Who is the “third party” in this case? Good question!

[jiggyboy]

During the trial, US Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the Supreme Court that people agree to hand over their information to providers for their service.

I've always thought this was BS. But it was accepted in Smith vs. Maryland, which was cited as precedent here. The dissent there was that picking up the phone that Ma Bell gave you, therefore connecting to Ma Bell's network, so that when you called somebody else, Ma Bell would know that the number that Ma Bell gave you was making a call, so that Ma Bell could send you a bill from Ma Bell, was somehow "volunteering personal information" and not simply dialing the damn phone.

[Theoria]

'If the confluence of the [now reversed] decisions and modern technology means our Fourth Amendment rights are reduced to nearly nothing, so be it."'

Yea right. Thanks Gorsuch!

[TexasGurl24]

Huh? Did you read him in context?

“What to do? It seems to me we could respond in at least
three ways. The first is to ignore the problem, maintain
Smith and Miller, and live with the consequences. If the
confluence of these decisions and modern technology
means our Fourth Amendment rights are reduced to nearly
nothing, so be it. The second choice is to set Smith and
Miller aside and try again using the Katz “reasonable
expectation of privacy” jurisprudence that produced them.
The third is to look for answers elsewhere.”

He is clearly saying that ignoring the problem would result in the eroding of the 4th Amendment, and that is not a good thing.

[taxcontrol]

I am a cyber security professional. I agree 100 percent with Justice Thomas. Your cell meta data is not yours, it is the carrier’s. I believe that the owner of the data has the right to decide to request a warrant or not.

However

If the carrier wants to roll over and let the LEO community come in and search their database, then the customer should be made aware of that policy and the customer can decide if they wish to continue their service or go with a more “secure” provider.

IOW, let the marketplace decide

[Theoria]

Yes, and he's putting up excuse. As if that's the only problems. Gorsuch, and similar tend to default to .gov instead of defending the people. Exchanging between two parties does not give up your privacy against .gov. nor granting more power to .gov. Thomas reasons were as lame as his. I could have easily seen the brits using his rationale to endeavor in their control over us.