Slashdot Mirror
A Supreme Court Case This Week Could Change US Digital Privacy Standards
On November 29th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carpenter v. US, a case essentially asking whether or not authorities need a warrant based on probable cause and signed by a judge to see your cellphone location data. For now, they do not. Given the fact that about 95% of Americans have cellphones, this case has major implications. Quartz reports: Mobile-service providers collect "cell site location information" (CSLI) for all phones, ostensibly to use for things like improving their networks. The U.S. government considers these data "routinely collected business records" rather than private information. That means it can demand the records without proving probable cause. That's what happened in the criminal case of Timothy Carpenter, accused of a series of Detroit, Michigan robberies. At Carpenter's trial, prosecutors presented evidence collected by private companies, obtained by the law without probable cause. They used 127 days-worth of cellphone-location data, amounting to almost 13,000 data points, to tell a circumstantial story of Carpenter comings and goings.
In its brief to the high court, filed in September, the justice department argued that when Carpenter signed onto his cell-phone provider's service, he agreed that his call records weren't private information belonging to him, but rather business records belonging to the company. Therefore, he should have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to these records, government attorneys wrote. Carpenter argues that the location evidence was obtained illegally. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that claim last year, basing their decision on Supreme Court cases from the 1970s: Smith v. Maryland and US v. Miller . The appeals court concluded that, under what's called the "third-party doctrine," Americans don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things like check deposit slips, similar banking records, and dialed telephone numbers.
In its brief to the high court, filed in September, the justice department argued that when Carpenter signed onto his cell-phone provider's service, he agreed that his call records weren't private information belonging to him, but rather business records belonging to the company. Therefore, he should have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to these records, government attorneys wrote. Carpenter argues that the location evidence was obtained illegally. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that claim last year, basing their decision on Supreme Court cases from the 1970s: Smith v. Maryland and US v. Miller . The appeals court concluded that, under what's called the "third-party doctrine," Americans don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things like check deposit slips, similar banking records, and dialed telephone numbers.
not play.
A good question to ask is - what is it reasonable to expect to be private?
Here are some scenarios that most people would agree would qualify as an invasion of privacy:
- If what you did on your personal property behind closed doors was made public;
- If you gave personal information to someone, and they said that they would keep it secret, but they then disclosed it to someone else.
Here are some scenarios that would *not* qualify as invasion of privacy:
- If you did something on property that was not yours, and it was made public;
I am not sure of a situation where you give personal information to someone, and they make it public after making no guarantees to you that they would keep such information secret. Are you foolish for giving the information without such guarantees, or should you expect that because the information is personal, you should automatically assume it should be kept secret? Why should you have such an expectation?
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
>"In its brief to the high court, filed in September, the justice department argued that when Carpenter signed onto his cell-phone provider's service, he agreed that his call records weren't private information belonging to him, but rather business records belonging to the company. Therefore, he should have "no reasonable expectation of privacy"
And THAT, my friends, is the slippery slope of how privacy and freedom is lost in the modern world of technology. That exact argument has been used over and over again to strip one thing after another. You will have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy wherever you go with your almost absolutely necessary cell-phone. No expectation in your car. No expectation at work. No expectation on a sidewalk. No expectation in your yard. No expectation using your private Email at home. None watching your DVR. Want to work here or just about anywhere? Sign this agreement. Want to get any type of insurance? Sign this agreement. Want to open a bank account? Sign this agreement. Want to own a car, credit card, house, software, whatever, sign this agreement. At some point we are talking about things we can't live without in the modern world and yet things in which private companies apparently conspire to all require the same often questionable and frequently unreasonable terms. And those private companies then allow all this data to flow right to any 3-letter government agency with little or zero resistance, or just "lose" it by being hacked or doing stupid crap.
Is it private information if you walk around shouting your name wherever you go? Or showing your face? Is it not just a short leap from that to your cell phone doing that for you?
ATT has my data .... ....
Google has my data
Apple has my data
Microsoft has my data
Facebook has my data and my thoughts
Amazon has my data
Snapchat has my thoughts
Instagram has my photos and memories
And we're worried the government would have location data??? Really????
what changed when we made the transition from wireline to wireless.
How is it that, by simply changing the method of transmission, we lost so much in the realm of privacy ?
( Location tracking even when disabled, cameras front and back, microphone and fully hackable )
They used the same argument when we switched from physical mail, to the electronic variety.
( Oh, it's stored on third party servers, so it's fair game. Even if stored overseas, they still try to lay claim to it. )
Why is it that I ( supposedly ) cannot be compelled to incriminate myself ( 5th amendment ) yet, I can be forced to provide
my fingerprint, face print, whatever, to unlock my phone which may or may not contain incriminating evidence during an
overly broad search of an entire building by the FBI ? ( Sans warrant I might add )
Even a fucking pen register required someone to sign off on it. ( Not a warrant, but still had to be approved )
On top of all this, it's unlikely they even bothered to go to the Phone Company for this data. They probably just fired up the damn
Stingray and are using the phone records as a nice scapegoat for how they obtained the data in the first place.
The ISPs, cell companies, app authors, etc are the custodians of location data. This data can't legally be disclosed unless there's:
(a) customer consent
(b) a lawful warrant
In these days of electronic warrants, it's not a big burden to have to ask a judge, but it keeps things kosher and makes sure the government isn't asking for personal data without good reason.
There have been 70+ years of science fiction covering every permutation of this technological stranglehold we are now finding ourselves in. But even in most of those there was some blind spot to the technology.
Blockchain will be the last nail in that surveillance coffin. Once you can't buy anything without it being traceable the only way left to stay hidden will be underground. And thanks to fine grained power monitoring today it won't be too hard to start looking for the 'leaks' in the powergrid to find people hiding from the system. The ones on solar will be picked up by satellite or surveillance planes. You MIGHT be able to hide wind power in some regions, whether due to windtunnel effects outside of satellite view, or artificial constructs.
It is certainly working hard towards being a brave new world to rediscover privacy, liberty and freedom in.
Information Asymmetry is always a bad thing, but we have officially kicked it into overdrive.
Because you're the Hulkamaniac brother!
just like with wired they did not need a warrant to know where the physical phone were (they just had to ask the company where the phone number it was linked to, which address, by reading the company documentation (phonebook) or just plain asking the company which complied warrantlessly. This is the same here, the company has your location, and is complying mostly warrantlessly. This is one of the case where you think there is a difference, but when you dig deeper, there is not. In both case the company knows your location, and happily give it to the cop. Now for email/mail you have a point, but for phone ? not really.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... as long as everyone can download that location info and the phone owner's name realtime.
They watch us, we watch them.
The law enforcement agencies will be OK with that, right? Because, I mean, they work for us, right?
CSLI is required for the efficient administration of their networks, site planning, capital investment strategy, and other business-related processes. They don't collect it because they want to, or to provide user features. They collect it because they HAVE to in order to stay in business.
There is absolutely no reason to consider this data otherwise.
I don't recognize the supreme court any more. I don't care how they rule.
If I own the cell tower and authorities come to me for information related to data collected, I will require them to present a bona fide warrant issued by a bona fide seated judge. If they don't have it, they will not get the data. PERIOD.
My constitutional rights are not subject to lower laws. The highest law in the land prevails over all others.