[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.

[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’).