Slashdot Mirror
Fifth Circuit Upholds Warrantless Cellphone Location Tracking
First time accepted submitter mendax writes "The New York Times is reporting, 'In a significant victory for law enforcement, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said that government authorities could extract historical location data directly from telecommunications carriers without a search warrant. The closely watched case, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is the first ruling (PDF) that squarely addresses the constitutionality of warrantless searches of historical location data stored by cellphone service providers. Ruling 2 to 1, the court said a warrantless search was 'not per se unconstitutional' because location data was 'clearly a business record' and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment.'' The article pointed out that this went squarely against a New Jersey Supreme Court opinion rendered earlier this month but noted that the state court's ruling was based upon the text of the state's constitution, not that of the federal constitution."
This has nothing to do with the concept of "corporate personhood", whether you agree with it or not.
This is a 4th Amendment issue. Searches and seizures of anything are protected for personal effects and papers. Electronic records are arguably that, but this court did not agree. It needs to be settled by SCOTUS.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Then, in the spirit of an open government, I would like to have all historical location data of all the elected politicians please.
... and the rest of Amish went along their day, unaware of how right they are.
The moment you write a document like the constitution, somebody is looking for how to game it. Over time they find technicality after technicality that allow them to push the envelope in new ways, until the entire spirit and intent of the original document is so shreded that it barely resembles what it was intended to.
How do we read amendments like the 4th and 5th so narrowly? Is it really ok that minor technological changes allow technicalities to be used to extend government powers in ways never before envisioned?
How does anyone seriously and honestly look at the constitution, then look at what is going on here, and not see that the only reason this doesn't get prohibited under them is minor technicalities that never could have been seen before they happened? Its a violation of the very spirit of the document!
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"