Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy at the Political Forums; The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of digital privacy. In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices said ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:59 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Post Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

Quote:
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of digital privacy.

In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices said that police need warrants to gather phone location data as evidence for trials. That reversed and remanded a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Carpenter v. United States is the first case about phone location data that the Supreme Court has ruled on. That makes it a landmark decision regarding how law enforcement agencies can use technology as they build cases. The court heard arguments in the case on Nov. 29.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 robbery in Detroit, after which police gathered months of phone location data from Timothy Carpenter's phone provider. They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days.

The legal and privacy concern was that police gathered the four months' worth of Carpenter's digital footprints without a warrant. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore didn't require a warrant.

In the Supreme Court's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's searches of Carpenter's phone records were considered a Fourth Amendment search.

"The Government's position fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter's location but also everyone else's, not for a short period but for years and years," he wrote.

Roberts said that allowing government access to historical GPS data infringes on Carpenter's Fourth Amendment protections and expectation of privacy, by providing law enforcement with an "all-encompassing record" of his whereabouts. He added that historical GPS data presents an "even greater privacy risk" than real-time GPS monitoring.
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

The deciding opinions were Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer. (i.e. the liberals, plus Roberts).
It's sad that it actually takes a court ruling to establish something this obvious.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 11:06 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,145
Thanks: 12,703
Thanked 9,503 Times in 6,073 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

The deciding opinions were Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer. (i.e. the liberals, plus Roberts).
It's sad that it actually takes a court ruling to establish something this obvious.
"It's sad that it actually takes a court ruling to establish something this obvious."


agreed.
the fact that 4 judges can't see it is just another example of how, to often, the Justices are not being honest regarding the clear intent of the constitution. Especially concerning civil liberties.
__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."

..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 12:03 PM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,096
Thanks: 65
Thanked 1,065 Times in 553 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

I consider myself far from liberal. Down right conservative. I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the political ideology that says this data should be available without a warrant.

You want to someone's phone data, get a warrant. What's the problem? If there is probable cause, then warrants really aren't that hard to get.

Edit: I must admit though that it feels dirty agreeing with Sotomayor about anything.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zenock For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 12:15 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

This privacy case is a huge win for constitutional freedom and conservatism/libertarianism. Glad to see this SCOTUS continuing to move our country in the right direction.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 03:28 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,622
Thanks: 2,530
Thanked 2,699 Times in 1,581 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

I am glad there is at least one conservative justice with enough sense to agree that you need a warrant.

I think the problem is that many people made the 4th amendment about privacy. Which on the surface seems kind of good. But when you make it about privacy then they can claim oh you stepped outside your expectations of privacy are gone. However the the 4th amendment says nothing about privacy. It basically says you need a warrant that is based on probable cause and signed by a judge to search someone and their property. Privacy is just a by-product of the 4th amendment, not the actual intent. Our founders didn't want the government searching people without cause and definitely without a warrant.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 06:12 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

[moderator mode]
merged threads on same article
[/moderator mode]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

This privacy case is a huge win for constitutional freedom and conservatism/libertarianism. Glad to see this SCOTUS continuing to move our country in the right direction.
a huge win for conservatism?
It was the liberals who made this court ruling possible.
All but one conservative voted against this ruling.
But you think it a huge win for conservatism?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 06:40 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,103
Thanks: 57,077
Thanked 26,858 Times in 19,308 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-co...location-data/

This privacy case is a huge win for constitutional freedom and conservatism/libertarianism. Glad to see this SCOTUS continuing to move our country in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
[moderator mode]
merged threads on same article
[/moderator mode]



a huge win for conservatism?
It was the liberals who made this court ruling possible.
All but one conservative voted against this ruling.
But you think it a huge win for conservatism?
Yes. It was a win, but easily could have gone the other way. That is scary.
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2018, 07:06 PM
Dave1's Avatar
...Fair and Balanced...
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,785
Thanks: 4,561
Thanked 5,744 Times in 3,373 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
[moderator mode]
merged threads on same article
[/moderator mode]



a huge win for conservatism?
It was the liberals who made this court ruling possible.
All but one conservative voted against this ruling.
But you think it a huge win for conservatism?
Hear, hear......

Framing this politically is a canard....
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave1 For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2018, 05:18 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,145
Thanks: 12,703
Thanked 9,503 Times in 6,073 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

on the issues concerning the the Bill of Rights, the conservative and liberal SCOTUS camps tend to pick and choose what they defend. rather than voting Strait down the line based on the intent of the framers and Pro-Liberty.
And both the left and the right camps overall tend to lean pro-government authority rather than pro-sovereignty and freedoms of the citizens.


1st amendment, -Freedom of expression and religion-
the left defends it until it gets to religion and religious speech. the right defends speech until folks makes neg comments about "America" or "lie in the media". And defends religion portion very vigorously... until it comes to Muslims.

2nd amendment, -Bearing Arms-
The left twists and many ultimately want repeal. the right loves and defends it to various degrees at least among the rank and file.

4th amendment, -Search and Seizure-
the left defends it more vigorously most of the time. The right, in it's quest for "law and order", too often doesn't have a problem with LEOs doing whatever it takes to "get the bad guys" and "thugs".

Amendment 5, -Rights of Persons and Property-
Before 911 and during the Bush years, the left defended these rights pretty well, when Obama became Prez, well fogitaboutit. The right (except for the the peleo cons and libertarian wing) have always been lack on this but hated it after 911, because "Law and order" and "constitutions not a suicide pack" . the fat cat right never supported the property portion and has maneuvered the gov't to take private property for their benefit. And at the lower levels the cops taking stuff ... well... "law and order" right?

Amendments 6, 7 and 8 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions, Civil Trials. no excessive bail, fines and no cruel punishments-
Before 911 and during the Bush years, the left defended these rights very well, when Obama became Prez, well fogitaboutit. the right (except for the the peleo cons and libertarian wing) since forever has generally been "LAW and ORDER" over these rights. can't have these amendments "handcuffing" Law enforcement from doin' their jobs. But after 911, Sheesh Louise, every excuse in the book has been used to deny these rights exist for "certain" people and in certain cases... or at all.... because "we're all gonna die if they do!".

Amendments 9 and 10 - powers of the people and states vs -over- the feds-
Overall the legal and gov't crowds would have us believe these amendments don't apply ever.
And the left, generally, has never been a fan or defender of these... until recently with state and local Pot legislation and using them for homosexual marriage. The right has tried to use them in the past but sadly to often on anti-civil-rights issues. So that's tainted the pool so that the legit use of the rights are now questioned when those on the right have begun to promote them out of more noble causes in the light of the feds march for total control of all areas of life cradle to grave.

etc etc for the rest of the important but lesser amendments.
Bottom line I wish BOTH sides would promote them ALL in ALL cases.
They were are built for all our Freedoms.
Not our political parties, or even our faux physical "safety" or our collective physical provisions.
__________________
.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."

..James Madison
.
"Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God."
..1 Peter 2:16

Last edited by mr wonder; 06-23-2018 at 05:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2018, 11:15 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
you think it a huge win for conservatism?
Privacy is a conservative cause
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
court, data, for, location, necessary, phone, privacy, says, supreme, warrant, win

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0