Comment by nomel
2 days ago
The supreme court had a 5-4 decision related to this [1]. Was there something specific, in that decision, that leaves a loophole open?
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
2 days ago
The supreme court had a 5-4 decision related to this [1]. Was there something specific, in that decision, that leaves a loophole open?
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
> Carpenter v. United States (2018) was a landmark Supreme Court case that held the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from cell phone carriers, as its acquisition constitutes a Fourth Amendment search
This is very different from buying your data from a company especially when the user consented to their location being tracked.
Too many people in these threads jumping to anti-Trump when the real issue is how quick we are to give up our our privacy to use technology and then quickly turn to shock in anger when it’s used against us.
> This is very different from buying your data from a company especially when the user consented to their location being tracked.
No, it's not 'very different'. When you sign a cellular contract you consent to all sorts of tracking and data collection, but it still requires a warrant for government to obtain.
Requesting != Buying
When this goes back to the courts you can come back to this comment and still be angry you are wrong.
1 reply →
Is it materialy different than a landline (in the rights signed away, not the data emitted/captured)?
You don’t actually consent (per-se) in most cases. Hence the warrant.
If you consented, no warrant would be required.
4 replies →
Modern vehicles make disabling data collection fairly difficult. And even if it is disabled, there is no guarantee data is not being sent despite your user settings.
I would love for investigative groups to target the auto industry’s data collection practices and have meaningful legislation created and implemented as a result.
> Too many people in these threads jumping to anti-Trump when the real issue is how quick we are to give up our our privacy
Both things are very real problems.
Why is it different though? Who gets to say so?
If the SCOTUS case merely said "needs a warrant to access historical data"... it didn't say "only if acquired via specific means" (like a subpoena), right?
> The Court ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the detailed, comprehensive record of their movements that CSLI provides, even though they share it with their carriers. This decision limited the "third-party doctrine," which previously suggested no privacy rights in information shared with third parties, and established that the unique nature of cell phone data requires greater protection.
Additionally, the decision was narrow, applying specifically to historical CSLI.
The issue of buying location data from a 3rd party company as part of a service has not been argued.
> the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people’s data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information — including location data — from ordinary consumer phone apps and games
This is completely different from CSLI, you are agreeing to provide your location to these apps and games, as most require it, and, finally, a majority of these EULA state that the data may be shared with 3rd parties.
SCOTUS makes narrow rulings all the time and this is one of them.
The argument that you are expressly providing your location information and agreeing that it can/will be shared with a 3rd party who can then do as they please with your data is not a violation of the 4th amendment and will be excluded from the 3rd party doctrine.
Many people won’t agree with this, and if ever argued in a court, they won’t agree with the ruling when it’s allowed to continue.
Yeah, the loophole is always "national security" and SCOTUS doesn't enforce the law.
[flagged]
The three letter agencies have a long history of ignoring the constitution, long before the Trump administration, going back to their inception, including as recent as the Biden administration [1].
[1] https://ij.org/press-release/fbi-caught-trying-to-sweep-its-...
edit: downvoters, is this not true? this is a historic problem with the agencies. This doesn't mean it's not also a problem with this administration. Two things can be true at once. I like pancakes and waffles.
This administration has also expressed an interest in using that information to persecute citizens.
Every administration needs to deal with the conflict of protection versus privacy. They all do things that privacy advocates wish they didn't.
But not since the early 70s has one been so explicit that it wants to use the justice system to punish their enemies, without even the pretense of a criminal charge.
So I think you're being downvoted over the perception of both-sidesism.
[flagged]
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
> I hate how weaponized each side is.
To be clear, one of these things has happened. The other has been hyped on Fox News.
It is really a stretch to "Both Sides" this issue.
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
3 replies →
The difference is that the right is actually doing this, and some parts of the left have suggested it.
I don't give the actions of one group the same weight as the opinions of some people in the other group.
There is nothing sacred about the number of Supreme Court justices, and historically there was one for each circuit, which is not the case now.
But the truth is, Democrats can win every single election this year and in 2028 and they would not be allowed to govern by this Supreme Court, which has chosen over and over again to overturn precedent and sow chaos.
Unfortunately, to arrest the slide into right-wing authoritarianism, you have to adopt their tactics sometimes.
But you don’t have anything to worry about. The democrats aren’t going to do any of this, and we’ll be in an even worse state in 2032.
That's not "kinda the same" at all. You can feel however you like about the strategy, but the constitution specifically doesn't elaborate on how many justices make up the supreme court. Article III simply states the following:
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
There is a huge gulf between ignoring standing law or a supreme court ruling and ignoring precedent. One involves choosing not to acknowledge i.e. disobeying, an authority, and the other involves choosing to act differently than has generally been expected in the past. Moreover, at least in recent history, it's primarily the Republicans who began the practice of ignoring precedent, long before our slow descent into where we are now: blatantly flaunting the law. See Merrick Garland's ignored nomination or the house's recent ludicrous delay of swearing in an elected representative for just two easy examples of this.
I mean none of this in any partisan fashion. It's simply a matter of fact. The idea that the GOP and the Democratic parties somehow engage in the same level or kind of antics and are thus deserving of the same level of nihilistic apathy as some kind of moderate position is charitably tragically misinformed.
Or... kinda like... not the same technique at all, since Congress can legally change the size of the Supreme Court but Trump can't legally ignore its rulings.