[Myrddin]

I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding.

[vette6387]

“I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding. “

And let’s not forget FasTRAK/FastPass toll transponders. Here in Northern California CalTrans was forced to provide bags for your transponder that prevents it’s being tracked. It’s a pain in the ass to have to take it out to use it, but at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that they don’t know your every movement. Then, there are all the “smart utility meters,” another violation of your right of privacy.

[businessprofessor]

It thought that a court order was necessary for law enforcement to obtain cell phone tracking data for evidence. I think that a warrant is required if law enforcement wants to get real time access to cell phone tracking data.

[Sacajaweau]

My thoughts also...

Things like "it's my car, it's my data".

The idea that they can have my driving info, or cell info and use it against me..well, it denys the right to take the fifth.

But the bottom line is usually MONEY...like insurance companies.

[LibertyRocks]

This was a good ruling, IMHO. As others have noted, the fact that the ones executing the search warrant that _was_ issued violated it from Day 1 according to the article.

You said, "I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding."

Do you mean extending it to the point that not even the cell companies can keep track of the "pings" and can only turn that ability "on" when they are presented a search warrant, or do you mean that the police can only access the data with a warrant? I think the cell companies keep a pretty tight rein on the data they do get from your phone "pinging" towers, at least it sure seems that way with the amount of time it takes to actually OK releasing "last ping" data for some active missing persons cases I've read about in the last few years.

I'm wondering if according to your thinking unless there was a search warrant obtained to get the "last ping" info. if it would then be inadmissible in any subsequent trial of suspected perpetrators and such (sometimes used for placing the victim in the same vicinity as the kidnapper/murderer or establishing a more accurate timeline).

I definitely agree that there absolutely needs to be a search warrant before police should be able to use any type of GPS tracking on anyone suspected of a crime. I'm just wondering what kind of restrictions or allowances should be made in specific circumstances.

[verity]

Are you engaged in illegal activities?

[Moonman62]

I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone.

While this ruling doesn't specifically apply to that situation it was mentioned. The ruling said GPS data from phones would come under "expectation of privacy." In other words, if you share your GPS data with a third party, the government may be able to get it without a warrant. The court also left room for GPS monitoring for durations significantly shorter than the four weeks in question. Today's ruling will be the first of many, but this was a very strong one, being unanimous.

[patton]

I always assume that the ONSTAR is recording everything...