In huge privacy win, US Supreme Court rules warrant needed to slurp folks' location data

Some good news for once that I think we all could be happy about:

In a decision that will define privacy in the digital age, the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 on Friday that the government needs a warrant to access its citizens' mobile phone location data.

Written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the four liberal justices, the majority opinion extended the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable search to include location records that mobile phone operators hold on their customers – a critical distinction that extends privacy protections beyond a physical device.

Building on another landmark case in 2014 when the court decided [PDF] that a warrant was required to search a mobile phone, the court decided that the "reasonable expectation of privacy" that people have in their "physical movements" should extend to records stored by third parties.

Source

A narrow win but a win none the less. Kudos to Chief Justice John Roberts for taking a stand and joining the four liberal justices to rule in favor. The issue of spying has been ongoing and a major issue since the Bush administration. The current administration and both the previous ones, Obama and Bush, made little issue with enforcing these invasive laws. The NDAA, the Patriot Act, still alive and well to this day.... I doubt this ruling will make too much of a difference in the blatant violation of privacy that persists to this day but it's something.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Good stuff. Not sure how anyone would think police should have access to that data without a warrant

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Good stuff. Not sure how anyone would think police should have access to that data without a warrant

It is taking the courts, Supreme court included, to drag itself into the 21st century and evolving technology. While we just assume something should be covered by the 4th amendment it doesnt work that way. As new technology enters the public there are instances its application is not covered under existing laws / rulings.

In the case of cell phones you have to look at if from previous scotus rulings - You have no expectation of privacy in public.

The 4th amendment wording didnt take into account electronics. At the time personal documents were just that, personal and in your possession. With electronics not so much. You get the bills but the detailed info is not kept by you nor is it in your possession.

While scotus is behind on this give them time. It is quickly catching up. The ruling on location data most likely stems from recent convictions of people for murder where the incriminating evidence that placed them at the scene of the crime was just the location data of their cell phone. If someone is going to be sent to prison for life or face the death penalty then the government should be required to comply with the only amendment that is specifically designed for the government and not the individual - the 4th.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

It is taking the courts, Supreme court included, to drag itself into the 21st century and evolving technology. While we just assume something should be covered by the 4th amendment it doesnt work that way. As new technology enters the public there are...

...quazi-demonic stooges and their henchmen in DC hellbent on subverting all that is good away from us, especially our money, liberty and privacy.

A local cop said they need more people to track and work cell phone data because every criminal has one and you can trace them right home. They just need more people to do the work.

Got a robbery just triangulate time and location then narrow the leads down. Start with 50 people but have a vehicle description. Check OnStar check cross reference cars owners and location. It really doesn't take long.

Great to see some good news and the Constitution being upheld for a change!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Great to see some good news and the Constitution being upheld for a change!

completely agree...

I have a feeling this won't solve much of anything. It sounds good on the surface but we all know that they will get our location data with or without a warrant.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Shame on those four who would not err on the side of caution concerning the fourth amendment.

This is the issue when technology outpaces policy and laws--and from a common-sense approach, the government should not have the right to know where citizens are at all times. That's just a silly idea.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As always, the key with matters pertaining to the behaviour of intelligence and law enforcement agencies toward the citizens rights, is not whether they are breaking the law or not, but proving it and getting the courts to prosecute the case. But the first step of that process, is to ensure that the law still supports the citizen in theory. Then the process becomes a matter of forcing the courts to recognise the crimes which have occurred and actually go to work on them.

i hear the scotus is on a role today

clearing many cases and such

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I have a feeling this won't solve much of anything. It sounds good on the surface but we all know that they will get our location data with or without a warrant.

click here if you agree

gotta love the fine print where most give away heir rights

a reply to: howtonhawky

In the tiniest print possible buried somewhere in the middle of the terms: "I agree to give up my location data regardless of whether there is a warrant or not".