Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by Manitou If more people actually read their contract with the phone scumbags, the providers would be broke ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:48 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,387
Thanks: 7,960
Thanked 6,634 Times in 4,015 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
If more people actually read their contract with the phone scumbags, the providers would be broke in no time.
The problem is that in today's world data transfer by cell phone, internet, or telephone is a necessity and there is no choice that allows the retention of data by the originator. This needs to be addressed. No agency should have the right to data generated by a private party.

Data mining is clearly a violation of the fourth. If you want to know where I've been or who I talked to, get a warrant.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2017, 12:15 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,447
Thanks: 1,020
Thanked 2,758 Times in 1,624 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Again, there is a HUGE difference inbetween:
* disseminating that info to companies / private individuals, and
* disseminating that info to the government.
The two are not equivalent



When did anybody give permission for the police to be given that info without a warrant?
When did anybody give permission for the police to receive that info?

Again, you're blindly assuming the two are equivalent.
They are not.

And you skew your analogy to void the parallel. The equivalent would have been if the tenants gave permission for the landlord to enter, and the landlord decided to bring the police with him (which the tenant never agreed to).
In your example, the wording makes plain the tenant gave permission for the police to enter, which has no intelligible parallel here. Nobody gave the police permission to acquire this data.



Again, a private individual doing that would be acceptable. A private individual could attach the device.

Another example is "on-star". It collects info about location, etc. But it would likewise be prohibited from sharing it with the government without a warrant.

Another example? A gun store could keep record of a sale. Likewise, it could share that info, couldn't it.
But would you think that they could automatically be allowed to share that info with the government when there is no law or warrant establishing that?

You don't seem to acknowledge the difference between a business / private individual and the government.


The precedent is there. They actually used your argument.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/law...e-privacy.html

Seems the eleventh circuit court also disagrees with you. When you posted the article you said "This is where a constitutional amendment would come in handy." If, as you claim in this thread, it is unconstitutional already, why did you think we needed an amendment?

When you sign a contract saying the service provide can disseminate the info as they see fit, it is a logical fallacy to think this somehow automatically doesn't apply if they want to give it to a cop.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2017, 03:27 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,040
Thanks: 9,901
Thanked 14,992 Times in 9,093 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/law...e-privacy.html
Seems the eleventh circuit court also disagrees with you. When you posted the article you said "This is where a constitutional amendment would come in handy." If, as you claim in this thread, it is unconstitutional already, why did you think we needed an amendment?
Because when it comes to electronic situations, we have a bunch of idiots in Washington who do as they please. And worse, they hide it from the American people to avoid us understanding how our government is spying on its own people.
The courts give leeway in that the government refuses to disclose their acts, and for a person to sue they have to prove they were a victim of the act. As long as the government keeps their actions secret and threatens people / groups with legal action, they can protect themselves and continue.

You'll note I also said:
In many ways, I can see the government's argument.
However, it's still wrong.
In that thread, I was asking for something explicit to document our electronic rights. To help avoid our government being idiots about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
When you sign a contract saying the service provide can disseminate the info as they see fit, it is a logical fallacy to think this somehow automatically doesn't apply if they want to give it to a cop.
Because that contract with the company does not touch the fourth amendment.
How are you not getting this?

A tenant's agreement with a landlord typically grants landlord's access given advance notice.
The landlord could bring in electricians, plumbers, etc, etc.

But it does NOT allow a landlord to walk in with the police.
You don't seem to grasp the constitution restricts the government.

An analogy would be an ice cream man who is allowed to hand out ice cream to whomever he pleases.
But Jimmy's mother has forbidden him from eating ice cream.
So you think the ice cream man's capability somehow supercedes Jimmy's mother's rule...
So is Jimmy (the government) excused just because the ice cream man (telecomms) can hand out that data?
Or is Jimmy's mother (the constitution) relevant to the situation?

Ergo, saying that the contract allows for that data (and for sharing) is something entirely different from whether the constitution restricts the government from having that data without a warrant.
__________________
“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

Last edited by foundit66; 06-09-2017 at 08:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2017, 03:30 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 74,285
Thanks: 53,286
Thanked 25,435 Times in 18,075 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Except that is exactly what you did when you signed the contract with the service provider.
I didn't sign a contract. but yes any such contract should be deemed illegal. consumers should not be held hostage to the police state.
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2017, 03:36 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 74,285
Thanks: 53,286
Thanked 25,435 Times in 18,075 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
If more people actually read their contract with the phone scumbags, the providers would be broke in no time.
no cause propagandist would be hired by the companies to make boycotters pariahs.
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2017, 04:54 PM
Counselor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 655
Thanks: 41
Thanked 456 Times in 273 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

I can't comment on what the LAW is but I will certainly comment on what I think it SHOULD be.

I think they should HAVE to get a warrant. Allowing police this information without one is putting to much unchecked power in their hands.

However, if the police illegal obtain this information at it shows John Doe was at such and such location when a little girl was raped and murdered there. I don't think it should be thrown out giving John Doe a get out of free card.

John Doe should go to jail for rape and murder and the police should also face legal punishment as well up to and including jail time for breaking the law. It never has made sense to me that we reward an offender instead of punishing the police for their bad behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:17 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,447
Thanks: 1,020
Thanked 2,758 Times in 1,624 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Ergo, saying that the contract allows for that data (and for sharing) is something entirely different from whether the constitution restricts the government from having that data without a warrant.
Nope, obtaining this data without a warrant has been allowed by two circuit courts so far and is the obvious extension to the SCOTUS decision in Smith v. Maryland. Obviously Smith v. Maryland was decided when (mostly) only land lines existed, however the court ruled that police did not need a warrant to pull the LUD's (local usage data) from a phone number. The LUD's contain all info with regard to incoming and outgoing phone numbers, duration of calls, time of calls, etc. The police could also use this info to show your location at the time.

Here is an excerpt from Smith v Maryland you may find educational:
Quote:
Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information
Well, looks like that whole "data collected for business purposes can't be given to law enforcement" theory of yours is DOA. Seems that SCOTUS was saying pretty much the same thing I've been telling you.

Last edited by lurch907; 06-12-2017 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2017, 08:01 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,040
Thanks: 9,901
Thanked 14,992 Times in 9,093 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Nope, obtaining this data without a warrant has been allowed by two circuit courts so far and is the obvious extension to the SCOTUS decision in Smith v. Maryland. Obviously Smith v. Maryland was decided when (mostly) only land lines existed, however the court ruled that police did not need a warrant to pull the LUD's (local usage data) from a phone number. The LUD's contain all info with regard to incoming and outgoing phone numbers, duration of calls, time of calls, etc. The police could also use this info to show your location at the time.

Here is an excerpt from Smith v Maryland you may find educational:


Well, looks like that whole "data collected for business purposes can't be given to law enforcement" theory of yours is DOA. Seems that SCOTUS was saying pretty much the same thing I've been telling you.
Apples and freakin' oranges.
You're presenting a case where the person dialed numbers and those dialed numbers were something the U.S. government got.

Nowhere near location data.

By this level of logic, if a person has On-Star on their vehicle, then automatically the government can toss a tracer on the vehicle and declare it legal / not requiring a warrant.


Worse for you, there was a subsequent Pen Register Act that was passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_re...n_Register_Act
This signifies that the people have a demanded expectation of privacy with regards to "pen registers" and that for the government to use them, a court order is required.

Ergo, if we do accept a parallel between pen registers and phone location data, you lose in that the people have instituted a demand for protection on the issue.
__________________
“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
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2017, 12:14 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,447
Thanks: 1,020
Thanked 2,758 Times in 1,624 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Apples and freakin' oranges.
You're presenting a case where the person dialed numbers and those dialed numbers were something the U.S. government got.

Nowhere near location data.

By this level of logic, if a person has On-Star on their vehicle, then automatically the government can toss a tracer on the vehicle and declare it legal / not requiring a warrant.


Worse for you, there was a subsequent Pen Register Act that was passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_re...n_Register_Act
This signifies that the people have a demanded expectation of privacy with regards to "pen registers" and that for the government to use them, a court order is required.

Ergo, if we do accept a parallel between pen registers and phone location data, you lose in that the people have instituted a demand for protection on the issue.
Oranges to oranges, the person transmitted a location and that transmitted location was what law enforcement got.
Did you even read the quote from the ruling? Specifically this line:
Quote:
When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information
The petitioner voluntarily provided information to the phone company and therefore had no recourse when the phone company revealed the information to law enforcement.
This is exactly what the current case is about and what I've told you over and over. If you voluntarily give the cell phone provider your location information you have zero expectation of privacy and you assume the risk that the info will be revealed to law enforcement. If you still can't understand that, I don't know what to say, I can't make it any simpler.
As for pen registers, even after pen register act, which is a law and not a court decision on constitutionality, a warrant is still not required. Why? Because the SCOTUS ruled that a pen register does not constitute a search.
Another pertinent piece of Smith v. Maryland for you: The court held that only the conversation should receive full constitutional protection under the right to privacy. In the current case, no part of a constitutionally protected conversation was revealed.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:14 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,040
Thanks: 9,901
Thanked 14,992 Times in 9,093 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court to decide if police need warrants for cell phone location data

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Oranges to oranges, the person transmitted a location and that transmitted location was what law enforcement got.
????
Pen registers record the number dialed. Not location.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Did you even read the quote from the ruling? Specifically this line:
Quote:
When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information
The petitioner voluntarily provided information to the phone company and therefore had no recourse when the phone company revealed the information to law enforcement.
This assumes "information is information", which is a grotesquely inaccurate assumption.

The number that a person dialed is not the same as giving a person's location away.

And like I said, even if we were to blindly assume this was oranges to oranges, your ruling was not the final state of the situation.
Today, citizens CONTINUE to give the phone company the number information they are dialing, but legislation passed after the ruling dictates that the government cannot just blindly demand that information without showing just cause.

Do you get the importance of that fact?
The people HAVE LEGISLATED that they have an expectation of privacy from the government, therefore the legal landscape changed.
If the exact same case were tried today, the courts would smack down the government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
This is exactly what the current case is about and what I've told you over and over. If you voluntarily give the cell phone provider your location information you have zero expectation of privacy and you assume the risk that the info will be revealed to law enforcement. If you still can't understand that, I don't know what to say, I can't make it any simpler.
You're assuming that one piece of information is just as protected (or not as protected) as another.
A grotesquely inaccurate assumption.


[quote=lurch907;893275]As for pen registers, even after pen register act, which is a law and not a court decision on constitutionality, a warrant is still not required. Why? Because the SCOTUS ruled that a pen register does not constitute a search.[/qutoe]
No.
Because the legislation dictated that. Not SCOTUS.

And regardless, that's irrelevant as compared to the message that the people sent the government regarding an expectation of privacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Another pertinent piece of Smith v. Maryland for you: The court held that only the conversation should receive full constitutional protection under the right to privacy. In the current case, no part of a constitutionally protected conversation was revealed.
Location data had no part of the case, but you're blindly assuming the same conclusion.
The number a person dialed as compared to that person's location are two entirely different pieces of information. The second should obviously warrant more expectations of privacy than the former.
__________________
“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
Reply

Tags
cell, court, data, decide, for, location, need, phone, police, supreme, warrants

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 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0