Posted on 06/22/2018 7:49:55 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
Excellent news!
[ I think I’ll just leave my cell phone at home when I do robberies. ]
It is the perfect alibi!
Well we checked their cell phone records and they were home the whole evening they can;t possibly be the robber, case dismissed!
Can somebody help me out here? Who's the "second party", if not the phone company?
From the Original Post:
The other addresses a person’s expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties. See United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (no expectation of privacy in financial records held by a bank), and Smith, 442 U. S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in records of dialed telephone numbers conveyed to telephone company). Pp. 7–10.
Looks like in one case, the second party is whomever you did business with through the bank, for instance if you wrote a check or used a debit card to make a legal or illegal purchase and in the other case, the second party is whomever you called, whomever you "dialed up" using the phone company's service.
That’s even better.
It’s getting to where people would find that convincing.
Agreed.
Hopefully someone creates a decent summary of the dissent as it’s disappointing to see the normally conservative justices on that side of the argument.
To get a warrant is only proper and in line with the constitution.
The police need a warrant but the phone company and all the apps on your phone are selling you.
It seems reasonable to me that law enforcement should be required to get a warrant demonstrating probable cause to turn over the these records.
Is there such a thing as "non-historic" data? Like they might have a method of collecting future data?
That’s the thing — I would think that business, not the phone company or the bank, is the third party. Before I made my first phone call (re: Smith vs Maryland), was the phone company already the “third party”? Who was already the second party in that case? They’re not trying to get records from the hundred “third party” people I called, they’re trying to get records from the phone company, whom they’re pretending to be some legally distant “third party”. These are the questions that have been vexing me for quite some time.
This is why Job One is total digital surveillance. It makes policing a whole lot easier.
I disagree. The very fine legal point in the decision here is that you're just turning on your phone, which is what communicates your position data to the cell tower. You didn't "volunteer" that information in the same way that you write something down and send it to the IRS or go to the store and make a purchase.
I hasten to add, as I have posted here, that I think the whole pretense of "volunteering your personal information to a third party" is also BS, and in two different ways, but whether that idea is BS or not was not what decided this case.
Good in some ways, bad in others. It’s a draw.................
“prosecutors were granted court orders to obtain the suspects’ cell phone records”
...
“Carpenter moved to suppress the data, arguing that the Government’s seizure of the records without obtaining a warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Could someone give a simple explanation of the difference between “a court order to obtain records” and “a warrant”?
“Can somebody help me out here? Who’s the “second party”, if not the phone company”
The person on the other end of your telephone call?
Subpoena vs warrant.
I’m fine with this
Why should the authorities be able to search your private residence car phone anything without a- permission. Or B - a warrant
For us law abiders. It’s not an issue. We’ll just grant permission to clear our name
It’s only law breakers or those with things to hide that are clearly concerned
Yep, there is just too much temptation and potential for abuse of police power these days. If you doubt me, or need any further evidence of corruption of the police power, simply look at the FBI’s despicable attempts to essentially set up and entrap certain low level members of the Trump transition team. Look at how Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power “unmasked” hundreds of Americans in the closing days of the Obama administration. Some officers and prosecutors will do most anything to “make a name” for themselves. No, better to make them get a warrant.
“Is there such a thing as “non-historic” data? Like they might have a method of collecting future data? “
I think they use non-historic data for the climate change studies. At least it seems like much of the data they use doesn’t correlate with history, or the future for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.