The MacRumors summary of this ruling is incorrect. This case had nothing to do with data stored on a smartphone. The Supreme Court already ruled a couple of years ago that law enforcement needs a warrant to search your phone. This more recent case had to do with data the cell phone network provider had gathered based on the phone connecting to various towers. The Court ruling means law enforcement will generally need a warrant to access that information as well.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrants to Obtain a User's Smartphone Location Data
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, especially abhorrent speech, which is why the whole concepts of criminalizing "hate speech" is so scary.
My wife is from Poland and every once and awhile we discuss what it would be like to move to and live in Europe.
I will never do it, no matter how much socialized medicine or other goodies the government gives me---I refuse to live in an Orwellian world that criminalized speech, thought, etc.
But the way the government works is that a person can be a law abiding citizen today and a felon tomorrow without changing their behavior. The government has a history both here in the US and all over the world of passing laws without basis. For example, is some jurisdictions it is still illegal to be gay. How would you feel about the government enforcing that using your phone. I'll bet the government could build a pretty convincing case with nothing other than your phone. It won't happen (and shouldn't) with this issue, but only because of the moral outrage that would result. But there are other more subtle laws that you are not aware of.
The constitutions sets sets some ideals above the petty laws that self interested governments pass. We can never trust the government to act in our best interests.
So privacy is important regardless of the your own view of the legality of your behavior. This was a known fact in the 1700s, but almost totally forgotten today.
I have yet to see the documented harm from the Patriot Act, where an individual's private communications have been used against him or her in a non-terrorist, non-national security setting.
I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I am not against it either. I'm ambivalent. I found it amusing when all the librarians were screaming bloody murder at the time the first Act was up for debate.
[doublepost=1529850645][/doublepost]
some jurisdictions it is still illegal to be gay
This is incorrect. It is absolutely and shockingly wrong. If gay marriage is legal in all 50 states it cannot be criminal to be gay.
I was not limiting my discussion to the US and anyway it was only an example of how things change, even if it was a bad example.
The Patriot Act is one of the worst invasions of privacy for no benefit ever passed.
Its time to curb the government's power as much as possible before it is too late.
Last edited:
I promise you, you will not spend a night in jail or a single dollar to defend a homosexuality prosecution. Will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, never happen. Ever. It is scare mongering to suggest otherwise.
Yep I was trying to rescue a bad example, I just deleted it. But there are other examples.
Well done. This puts an end to them searching a cell phone without a warrant, but not the 5A in regards to touchID or fingerprint scanners to unlock a phone. That's another case for another time.
But I'm glad SCOTUS is finally getting around to looking at essentially requiring LEOs to get a warrant to get 3rd parties to an investigation to hand over your data. That should have been required to begin with, as getting a subpoena as they used to do was very overreaching.
BL.
Nope. They do need to know which towers you're near, in order to smoothly hand over the connection as one tower's signal becomes weaker than another tower's signal.
I always find it amusing that if someone (only using your post BuffaloTF to piggy back off) has done something wrong in the US that it seems that the first thing a person does is find an Amendment to hide behind and claim diplomatic immunity?
More to the point - since mobile phone companies sell location data with no controls whatsoever. Law enforcement would be able to get this data easily, whether or not it should require a warrant. Is this another case of wanting access to the phone to go fishing, this time using location as the excuse?
Because the law is super complex and we have years of decisions that impact when a warrant is needed and when it is not. The description of the questions at hand in the press are usually not even the issues the justices are facing. Its just what editors think will grab headlines.
Wow!
I was hoping it would be a great podcast and I wasn't disappointed. I have listened to almost all of the episodes now. Very interesting on so many levels. From the early days of little importance to today where the court impacts our daily lives. Should be used in high school civics classes. It would generate great discussions.