Gunslingr3 wrote: “There is no expectation of privacy in public. Wrong.”
Once again, you’re distorting what the supreme court has said. Under traditional U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, a person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in things or activities they knowingly expose to the public, but modern rulings have added major digital exceptions for public movement and location data.
Carpenter held that the courts need a warrant to search your cell phone records. Cell phone records are not Flock cameras. The test is that if you can observe something with your naked eyes, it is not protected. Cell phone data requires specialized equipment, not an eye, therefore cell phone data is protected and photograph is not.
Wrong. I'm QUOTING the Supreme Court. You're the one trying to mislead people, and you have nothing you can quote from the Supreme Court that affirms your efforts to mislead.
Carpenter held that the courts need a warrant to search your cell phone records.
Half truth, more evidence your efforts to mislead others. I asked you in private mail WHY they held that, and you refused to address it because it destroys the argument you're trying to make. So let me tell you in front of god and everybody why they held that, and I quote:
“individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements”
If you think a nationally networked, electronic surveillance system that logs everyone it can detect doesn't violate that right to privacy you are a moron.
I can lead you to the water. I can drown you in the water. But I can never make you understand until you confront the question of WHY the Supreme Court requires a warrant to track cell phone locations. Your evasion of that question gives you away...