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

cnet ^ | 22 JUN 18 | Alfred Ng

[Alberta's Child]

P.S. -- Why is it that the police don't need a warrant to search through your garbage? The answer is that once you dispose of something you have made a conscious decision NOT to consider it part of your person or property any longer.

The dissenting justices in this case have concluded that a phone company is the legal equivalent of a trash collector when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

[Blackyce]

This case was not about whether law enforcement can search your phone without a warrant, the court held unanimously that they can not a few years back. This case was about whether the police can request the cell phone tower data from your phone company and use it to track your physical location minute to minute for the last half year or so of your life without a warrant.

[Blackyce]

FISA warrants are still warrants, this case wont have any impact on the concerns you raised.

[plain talk]

Thanks. That happens to be an area that I know something about. Obtaining a warrant is the right decision although there are cases where bad guys will get away. So liberty does have its price at times.

[zeugma]

I cannot believe that the Founding Fathers would have supported the ability of the state to spy on private citizens by such means sans a warrant.

It's even worse than that. Because the idiot phone companies hold on to the data for so long, the government can put a retroactive tail on you for the past year. One case brought up during oral arguments had had exactly that done to him, without a freaking warrant.

You're right. The "conservatives" were wrong on this issue. Big time. It is unfortunate that so-called conservatives are so enthusiastic about the expansion of the police state.

[bert]

The phone companies own the data

If you do not want to be located, don’t have a cell phone.

There is no right to privacy associated with cell phone location

[bert]

The phone companies own the data

If you do not want to be located, don’t have a cell phone.

There is no right to privacy associated with cell phone location

[Neoliberalnot]

Not so much law enforcement, but very clearly crooked lawyers and judges scoff at the law. Hell, they make the law and twist the Constituion in fashions that always benefit the lawyers and blackrobed tyrants.

[Almondjoy]

Except I wholly disagree, by being a customer of MetroPCS, he did create the records. If he didn’t have a cell phone with that company it wouldn’t exist.

[RockyTx]

a cell phone is a two-way radio.
exactly what kind of ‘’privacy’’ do people expect?
the cell phone is constantly sending out its position

side issue. encryption.
does a cell phone company
guarantee you anything?

[Gay State Conservative]

They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days...

My understanding of the technology,plus a plain fact,tells me that that's wrong.It's my understanding that this technology only gives an approximate location for the phone,not an exact one.Also,just because someone's *phone* is in a particular place it doesn't mean that the *owner* was there as well.People do lend their phones to others and people do "borrow" another person's phone without his/her permission/knowledge.

[Abathar]

A FISA warrant is still a warrant, nothing has changed at all with those. That is foreign intelligence anyway, a bank robber or Joe civilian doesn’t even fall anywhere near their preview.

This is just the police demanding to see his stored information a wireless company have on an individual, and they have been capitulating and giving them that data without a fight.

Now if they do that they can be sued by the person who they harmed, whether or not they’re guilty of a crime if the police don’t get a search warrant first.

[i_robot73]

Then why, for all these years, was it necessary to has a warrant for a phone tap?

If you using the services of a 3rd party...as you state.

[Kickass Conservative]

Big deal.

They can get a FISA Warrant to spy on Political enemies, supposedly the most reviewed and deliberate type of Warrant because somebody accuses somebody else of hiring Prostitutes to Pee on a Bed in a Russian Hotel.

If that is justifiable, anything is.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good question. The difference was that warrants were always required for phone taps because the intent was to listen in on a conversation as it was taking place.

What's changed in the modern age of cell phones is that these phones continually generate data that gets uploaded to the phone carrier and stored indefinitely. That was the important legal distinction in this case, and it was the basis of the dissenting opinion by Thomas, Gorsuch, etc. They determined that a warrant wasn't required because getting data from a phone company months or years after the fact is no different than getting copies of your financial records from your bank.

[beef]

None of this is going to be satisfactorily resolved until the people demand data security. There is no reason for the phone companies need to retain this data for more than a couple of months after the bill has been paid, if that. But they save it anyway for years and years, probably forever. And the vast majority of their customers do not care. It will not change until the customers DO care. I hope when that happens it is not too late.

FWIW, I do not have a smart phone, and I only carry my dumb phone sporadically, and I keep it shut off unless I want to use it. Life is just fine that way.

[gibsonguy]

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

Justice Thomas makes a compelling argument but couldn’t his argument to be used to search ones safety deposit box because it is kept in a 3rd party’s property? Just one example and I think the SC ruled correctly but it is a close one.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I think this means the government is the first party, the suspect the second (or you could swap those two), and the phone company is the third party.

[i_robot73]

>
That’s a good question. The difference was that warrants were always required for phone taps because the intent was to listen in on a conversation as it was taking place.

What’s changed in the modern age of cell phones is that these phones continually generate data that gets uploaded to the phone carrier and stored indefinitely. That was the important legal distinction in this case, and it was the basis of the dissenting opinion by Thomas, Gorsuch, etc. They determined that a warrant wasn’t required because getting data from a phone company months or years after the fact is no different than getting copies of your financial records from your bank.
>

IMO, a diff. w/o distinction. The “game-changer” that is technology has moved the ‘live’ conversion to ‘we’ll just listen to the saved RECORDING’ (now the ‘property’ of a 3rd party, the carrier).

Again, IMO, way further down that slippery slope as the recordings\records are govt MANDATED. Much like the firearms paperwork that’ll *NEVER* get into a govt DB (but don’t you DARE destroy them once your gun shop closes/etc....just send ‘em into the ATF for ‘safe keeping’).