Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court: Warrant Generally Needed To Track Cell Phone Location Data (cnn.com)
daveschroeder writes: The Supreme Court on Friday said the government generally needs a warrant if it wants to track an individual's location through cell phone records over an extended period of time. The ruling [PDF] is a major victory for advocates of increased privacy rights who argued more protections were needed when it comes to the government obtaining information from a third party such as a cell phone company. The 5-4 opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices. It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.
Now, what about things like license plate trackers that track where your car goes?
The question of what requires a warrant needs to have a simple answer that is easy to apply.
My solution: If an unaffiliated private individual would be expected to be able, both technically and legally, to conduct the same operation, then no warrant is required. In these cases, there is no expectation of privacy, as anyone could gather the same evidence.
Once you go beyond that standard, there is an expectation of privacy, so the government should require some checks on the power to violate that privacy. The standard check is a court-issued warrant.
Gorsuch voted in favor of the government's right to track your location without a warrant. You can spin that all you want, but it's in the record books now and you can't refute it.
All the talk of "rights of the individual" and "The Constitution" are lip service. If he supported liberty over tyranny, he could have voted with the liberal majority and written a concurring opinion to clarify his position.
Bootlickers gonna bootlick.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Also, the Obama and Trump Administrations argued that your freedom isn't as important as the right of the government to track you.
Fixed that for ya. This case hit the supreme court petition list in 2016, with arguments in 2017. That means it started in the lower courts well before that time, and under the Obama administration, then continued under the Trump administration. Either could have dropped it, but they didn't.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Then don't comment. His dissenting opinion is surprisingly knowledgeable and relevant to the current Information Age in which we live. Try reading. It is amazing.
Did you even read his argument as to why he dissented? Obviously not, otherwise you'd know that he did because he felt that the other opinions were too vague in order to be in favor of it. Go on, read it. Dust off that annotated copy of rulings, and you'll figure it out. When you do, you'll also figure out why you look like an idiot to anyone who's studied law.
So you are saying that rather than vote for it, even though he thought that it is not precise enough, he decided to vote against it and write that it is not precise enough.
Still pretty obvious whose interests he is siding with then IMHO.
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
You are welcome on my lawn.
including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights,
Did you even read his argument as to why he dissented? Obviously not, otherwise you'd know that he did because he felt that the other opinions were too vague in order to be in favor of it. Go on, read it. Dust off that annotated copy of rulings, and you'll figure it out. When you do, you'll also figure out why you look like an idiot to anyone who's studied law.
If Gorsuch thought that a warrant is needed, he would have voted that way. If he did, but didn't like the reasoning that Roberts et al used, he could have written a concurring opinion. The fact that he voted that a warrant isn't necessary tells you that he thinks a warrant isn't necessary.