Supreme Court rules in favor of digital privacy on cell location data

[UglyCasanova]

score one for the good guys


https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/

IN A HIGHLY anticipated decision released Friday, the US Supreme Court updated Fourth Amendment protections for the digital era. In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided in Carpenter v. United States that the government generally needs a warrant in order to access cell site location information, which is automatically generated whenever a mobile phone connects to a cell tower and is stored by wireless carriers for years. The ruling does leave the door open for law enforcement to obtain such information without a warrant in some instances. Still, the court recognizes that cell phones are not voluntary but necessary for modern life, and that their technology poses some unique circumstances for the law.

 

[paperfist]

But all of our voice and texts are still stored in the desert?

 

[dank69]

score one for the good guys


https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/

IN A HIGHLY anticipated decision released Friday, the US Supreme Court updated Fourth Amendment protections for the digital era. In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided in Carpenter v. United States that the government generally needs a warrant in order to access cell site location information, which is automatically generated whenever a mobile phone connects to a cell tower and is stored by wireless carriers for years. The ruling does leave the door open for law enforcement to obtain such information without a warrant in some instances. Still, the court recognizes that cell phones are not voluntary but necessary for modern life, and that their technology poses some unique circumstances for the law.

Please note how each judge voted and the next time you try to claim bothsidesthesame slap yourself with a trout.

 

[Exterous]

This is fantastic news. I've been loosely following the case for a bit now and have had many discussions with people regarding it. An unfortunate number of those center around the argument of "Well he's guilty so its fine." I'm glad the Supreme Court realizes that location data is a different beast from random public witnesses

 

[Amused]

Yet another example of why I will not and cannot support the current "conservative" party in this country.

It is not conservative. It is nationalist authoritarian. As such it is the single greatest threat to our freedoms and rights.

 

[TallBill]

Lmao.

This was a good ruling but...

99.9% of departments have been getting warrants for this already, and it's not tough to get one. Good to codify it but praising it as a huge victory is pretty comical.

 

[The Merg]

It was a very interesting decision, especially looking at the split.

While it does re-enforce privacy rights, I don’t see this as having too much of an impact though on law enforcement. Before the decision, law enforcement could use the standard of reasonableness via a court order to obtain subscriber information to include cell tower location history. Basically, they could get all that information at once.

Now, they can still use the reasonableness standard via a court order to obtain the subscriber information, but they then need to go back and use a search warrant, which would require probable cause. In most cases, once they show the phone is linked to the suspect, they will probably be at the level for probable cause.

Basically, it will take two steps to get the cell phone location history instead of just one.

- Merg

 

[TallBill]

It was a very interesting decision, especially looking at the split.

While it does re-enforce privacy rights, I don’t see this as having too much of an impact though on law enforcement. Before the decision, law enforcement could use the standard of reasonableness via a court order to obtain subscriber information to include cell tower location history. Basically, they could get all that information at once.

Now, they can still use the reasonableness standard via a court order to obtain the subscriber information, but they then need to go back and use a search warrant, which would require probable cause. In most cases, once they show the phone is linked to the suspect, they will probably be at the level for probable cause.

Basically, it will take two steps to get the cell phone location history instead of just one.

- Merg

Nailed it. Again, still good to have on the books but nothing really changed.

 

[The Merg]

Lmao.

This was a good ruling but...

99.9% of departments have been getting warrants for this already, and it's not tough to get one. Good to codify it but praising it as a huge victory is pretty comical.

Actually, most use court orders or subpoenas to get that information right now.

As an example, here in Virginia, the process for the court order is as follows:

- Officer writes court order
- Officer signs and has it notarized
- Commonwealth Attorney signs order
- Order submitted to Circuit Court for judge to review and sign it
- Officer picks up signed copy from Court
- Officer submits court order to phone provider

All of that might just take two days as normally it takes a day for the judge to sign the order.

The process for a search warrant is as follows:

- Officer writes search warrant
- Officer has warrant signed by Magistrate or Judge (Magistrates are available 24/7)
- Officer submits signed warrant to phone provider
- When results come back, Officer files search warrant in Circuit Court

It does take a little longer to write a search warrant compared to a court order, but the overall process is generally easier and quicker.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Nailed it. Again, still good to have on the books but nothing really changed.

True... And I’ll add that if law enforcement already have probable cause before obtaining subscriber information, that they will probably just use a search warrant in the same manner they had previously used the court order.

- Merg

 

[TallBill]

Fair enough. Only time I've pinged a phone we handed the information over to German Police and since they have no rights to anything over here they tracked it down. It was for a suicidal individual.

 

[The Merg]

Fair enough. Only time I've pinged a phone we handed the information over to German Police and since they have no rights to anything over here they tracked it down. It was for a suicidal individual.

That’s a little different. In the case of exigent circumstances, the phone companies will provide real-time location updates without the need for a search warrant in hand. Law enforcement is supposed to supply a search warrant after the fact in those cases.

- Merg

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, most use court orders or subpoenas to get that information right now.

As an example, here in Virginia, the process for the court order is as follows:

- Officer writes court order
- Officer signs and has it notarized
- Commonwealth Attorney signs order
- Order submitted to Circuit Court for judge to review and sign it
- Officer picks up signed copy from Court
- Officer submits court order to phone provider

All of that might just take two days as normally it takes a day for the judge to sign the order.

The process for a search warrant is as follows:

- Officer writes search warrant
- Officer has warrant signed by Magistrate or Judge (Magistrates are available 24/7)
- Officer submits signed warrant to phone provider
- When results come back, Officer files search warrant in Circuit Court

It does take a little longer to write a search warrant compared to a court order, but the overall process is generally easier and quicker.

- Merg

So what? Prior to this ruling, the information was available to the police simply on request. Just give the provider something to tuck in their records to cover their ass & they deliver.

 

[The Merg]

So what? Prior to this ruling, the information was available to the police simply on request. Just give the provider something to tuck in their records to cover their ass & they deliver.

To some extent, that might be true. Companies absolutely wanted paper in hand that was authorization from a Court that they could release the information to prevent issues of liability.

I have seen cases where the Court Orders were not approved by judges though, so it’s not as if an officer turns it over and they are signed off willy-nilly.

It really isn’t that much more difficult for an officer to write a search warrant as I showed above. Yes, probable cause is a little higher standard than the reasonableness standard, but it really isn’t that much more.

Think of it this way... Is it reasonable to believe the subject was involved in a crime or is it probable to believe the subject was involved in a crime? There’s not a huge difference there and it’s far from the idea that you are absolutely certain beyond a reasonable doubt the subject committed the crime.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

What impact will this have on the cell tower spoofing thingamabobs?

 

[The Merg]

What impact will this have on the cell tower spoofing thingamabobs?

You mean the people that use them to hide where they really are? Absolutely nothing.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

You mean the people that use them to hide where they really are? Absolutely nothing.

- Merg

No, I was talking about Stingray devices that police have been, mostly secretly, using without warrants. I haven't kept up on it lately but a while back cops/prosecutors were so secretive that they would lie and say the information came from a confidential informant. They would even go so far as to drop cases to avoid having to reveal that they used information from a Stingray. The way that they were, and probably still are, they are knowingly and willfully violating the 4th amendment rights of citizens. It was a condition of the FBI's upon purchasing them for them to be kept a secret in all court documents and such but that doesn't excuse them for using them to violate peoples rights.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...rs-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/

 

[Commodus]

Really happy about this. It gets a bit tiring to hear law enforcement perpetually act as if it has a constitutional right to spy on people's devices, like their desire for a conviction matters more than our privacy. This slaps them down for a while. Now, if we could get officials to stop calling for backdoors (read: permanent security holes)...