[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.

[T. Jefferson]

Seems like a futile ruling. In the not too distant future, they will be able to obtain a specially selected judge’s digital-warrant-to-blackberry in minutes; backdated to fit any police report when necessary. There’s far too much money being lost that could be used for important things, like pension padding and overtime pay.

[Myrddin]

There is a difference between sharing a discrete point in time and allowing continuous tracking without consent. If I post a "checkin" on Facebook, that is a voluntary exposure of location. I don't think that entitles continuing surveillance from the checkin to the next time a "checkin" is exposed on a voluntary basis. If law enforcement wants access beyond what a user voluntary exposes, a warrant should be required to collect the data as admissible legal evidence in a court proceeding. There is no argument that the discrete exposures made voluntarily have waived expectation of privacy, but they should not constitute an ongoing waiver of that expectation for data not purposely exposed.