In another landmark decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement agencies must first obtain a warrant before sweeping up smartphone location data from third-party tech companies like Google. In her majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that a lower court should reexamine whether the technique known as geofencing constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. She wrote, “An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information.”
10 Comments
Triumph@fedia.io · 21 pts · 56d
What they're talking about is the practice of collecting all of the location data for all devices in specified areas, then examining that data to see if someone they suspect but don't have enough to get a warrant for their specific phone data was in that area. Or comparing data from multiple locations to see who was at A at a certain time and at B at a certain time.
They've always needed a warrant for cell tower data used in this way; this ruling appears to extend that requirement to any location data from any company.
Undvik@fedia.io · 18 pts · 56d
So what about stingrays?
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 11 pts · 56d
As always, them needing a warrant only matters if they use that information as evidence, if not, they use the illegally obtained information to find another plausible legal way they can say they found the information, known as Parallel Construction.
Not just stingrays either they've all sorts of spyware.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 56d
This ruling along with birthright citizenship has put a little spring in my step today
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 56d
Yeah... there have been a few good rulings. Let's hope the trend continues.
massacre@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 56d
Good, now use the precedent to stop Flock and the other 3rd parties like Palantir from collecting your location data without a warrant.
Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 56d
Rare SCOTUS W?
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 56d
That, or maybe just certain justices are worried about their own devices being picked up in less-than-upstanding places if one of their less-than-upstanding friends is investigated for crimes.
danc4498@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 56d
I wonder if this just puts a hurtle in the way of cops invading people privacy, or if it’ll be more significant.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 56d
It won't change anything.