- Joined
- Mar 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,277
- Reaction score
- 2,052
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
[h=1]Police don't need warrant for your phone location data, court finds[/h]The ruling ends a split between the courts on whether asking a company for location data provided by users requires a warrant.
by Luke Lancaster May 31, 2016
The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that police asking a company to provide phone location data offered up by users does not represent a search under the Fourth Amendment and can be done without a warrant.
It's commonplace for many apps to request access to your location data, and the ruling was based on an earlier Supreme Court precedent that information volunteered to a third party is fair game.
Judge Wynn, a dissenting voice on the court, mirrored the concerns of privacy advocates:
"Only time will tell whether our society will prove capable of preserving age-old privacy protections in this increasingly networked era. But one thing is sure: this Court's decision today will do nothing to advance that effort."
That last part may not be that easy. I am not sure there is a projectvotesmart or ontheissues for judges.So... What to do about it?
Here's a start:
Put your phone in Airplane mode.
Turn off the Location based Services.
Use a location faker piece of software to make it appear that you never leave the house.
If you pull jury duty, refuse to convict any person who was investigated using warrant-less location information.
Vote out any judge who allows warrant-less location information to be used in his/her court.
That last part may not be that easy. I am not sure there is a projectvotesmart or ontheissues for judges.
What does this have to do with "lefties"? Im a leftie and am against the surveillance state.....
I believe that. And I'm not sure this is a left/right issue in itself. But somebody up there cited the 'faulty' slippery slope analogy. Indeed the slippery slope argument can be flawed and is included among the lengthy list of fallacious arguments. But the slippery slope concept can also be entirely valid, and indeed the OP makes a compelling argument for how valid use of phone data by law enforcement can also translate to uses none of us would consider valid. While it is a powerful tool for valid use for a good cop, at the same time it provides the same tool to government in general--Homeland security, FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA, postal inspectors, etc. Few government agencies do not have some sort of enforcement division.
So where is the balance? Is the argument for empowering law enforcement to enforce the law? (That would more often come down as a rightwing position.) Or is the argument for more power for government overall to regulate more of our lives. (That would be a leftwing position.)
And indeed that which is used honorably and for good can absolutely also be used by those with an ax to grind, a political opponent to trip up, a critic to punish, a movement to discredit, etc.
Do we want government empowered to track our every movement in this high tech age?
I agree with your analysis. Was just pointing out that this really is not a left/right issue in itself.
The amount of faulty slippery slope and partisan interpretation of a confirmation bias going on in this post is really quite astounding.
As for the "new abuse," I won't be doing anything other than waiting to see if the Supreme Court takes up this case and then listening to their decision on the issue. In the meantime, I will continue to use my cell phone for a variety of nefarious deeds like "not going to a gay bar."
:lamo
If you voluntarily carry around a tracking device with you, turned on, well, you're eventually going to be tracked.
There was a case where the SCOTUS found that the police placing a GPS tracking device on a person's car was a violation to the 4th Amendment. I see this as possibly being overturned for similar reasons.
I disagree with the 4th Circuit's ruling in this case, and feel that the 4th Amendment covers our phone's position in space. Also, when we give permission to an app to see our position, we are doing so within the protections of the privacy protections afforded by and promised by the app's company. The government, IMHO, does not have the power to circumvent that agreement, nor to assume that our private agreement with an app company is tantamount to our relinquishing our 4th Amendment right to Privacy.
However, although I doubt it was your intention to do so, the obvious flipped and dismissive response in your post to an obvious attack on our 4th Amendment Right to Privacy by the government, actually gives proof to accusation for the OP - a QED if you will of exactly what he was describing. Well done. I'm sure the OP appreaciates such a vivid demonstration of his point... and the very first post following his.
Edit: Found the SCOTUS case for you: United States v. Jones (2012)
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.What does this have to do with "lefties"? Im a leftie and am against the surveillance state.....
An excellent argument. But based on your argument and that presented by others, let me play devil's advocate a bit:
If there is a means to turn off the locater, then anybody who does not want to be tracked can do that. And I read recently that Google or somebody has an app that you can use to virtually transport your phone to any place in the word giving the illusion that you are there. And there were other suggestions to fool the trackers. So maybe since there is that option, if you leave your phone so that you can be tracked, you could say you are giving permission to the world to do that.
And now back to your (and my) side of the argument:
On the other hand, the locater is a tremendous safety device for those who WANT to be found should they need to be found in case of sudden illness, accident, getting lost in the woods, or whatever. And we should be able to use that service without fear of the government or anybody else unauthorized to do so tracking our every movement and recording where we go.
Then again if the technology in the movie "Enemy of the State" is really a technology, the government can track our every move anyway.
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.
That's true. However, the question here is whether the government has the power to do so without a warrant, to which they are limited and restricted by the Fourth Amendment. I drive my truck in public, and the government can follow me to see where I go, but they cannot place electronic monitoring devices on my truck because that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and my right to be "secure in [my] their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" which was ruled by the SCOTUS in United States v. Jones (2012). The government can subpoena my phone records as evidence for a case, or get a search warrant to go through my phone records, or do like they can with my truck and just follow me around in public. However, my phone goes with me more places than just public places. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, but my phone goes with me to private places where there is most definitely a legal and reasonable expectation of privacy and to be secure on my person, house, papers, and effects.
You seem to be skipping over the voluntary part. Location services are voluntary, you may turn it off any time you want. True, if the Government sneaks a tracking device onto your truck without a warrant, then the 4th has been violated. But if you voluntarily broadcast the location of your truck, the Government has violated nothing, they simply listened to what you volunteered to give away.
The same goes for the phone. It doesn't matter if you feel like you are in a private space if you have given permission to your phone to shout it out. If you don't want anyone to know you are in a private space, then don't have your phone shout it out. Your phone cannot read your mind to determine when you want privacy, you have to tell it. It is voluntary, not magic.
You seem to be skipping over the voluntary part. Location services are voluntary, you may turn it off any time you want. True, if the Government sneaks a tracking device onto your truck without a warrant, then the 4th has been violated. But if you voluntarily broadcast the location of your truck, the Government has violated nothing, they simply listened to what you volunteered to give away.
The same goes for the phone. It doesn't matter if you feel like you are in a private space if you have given permission to your phone to shout it out. If you don't want anyone to know you are in a private space, then don't have your phone shout it out. Your phone cannot read your mind to determine when you want privacy, you have to tell it. It is voluntary, not magic.
Yes. My thought too UNTIL we get to the valid slippery slope concept. I think it is far more likely to be those on the left who will trust all of government to use such powers honorably. Much less so those on the right.
This judge is a Obama appointee. You should be concerned by the other judges that will be appointed by the democrats if they win, presumably helped along with your vote.
If I hadn't make this thread, would you, and/or most people, have known to turn off those services?
If (When) the Lefties begin using location information to ID political enemies lists, and being doing IRS audits, or EPA home-realestate-lot Wetlands designations, based on those lists, How will you KNOW it is happening.
They will know... you will NOT!
Once the Enemies Lists are created, how can they ever be removed from Democratic Party Knowledge, allowing the use of Government Officials Authority to "Reward their Friends and Punish their Enemies"?
-
You seem to be assuming that a person can unknowingly and voluntarily give up a natural right, even one that is enshrined in the US Constitution. A person staying silent under the Fifth Amendment Right to remain silent does not forfeit their 1st Amendment Right to free speech by doing so. Nor does a person exercising their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Association by entering into an agreement with an app company regarding the location of their phone forfeit their Fourth Amendment Right to be Secure from Unreasonable Search or Seizure, nor does it forfeit their Fifth Amendment Right against compelled self incrimination or to remain silent regarding the government - anything said between the person's phone and the app company could be argued as hearsay and not admissible as evidence.
The status of the right is defined by the right holder, not the government. If the right holder feels, thinks, and/or believes that their protection from the government by the right still exists, then it still exists. Voluntary agreement to allow a singular person or group to know information that is protected from government seizure of that information does not give the government the power to seize the information without due process via a warrant. Especially if the information was shared under a privacy agreement where the information could not be divulged to a third party without the permission of the right holder.
Now, if the person is informed that sharing the information with the second party, automatically relinquishes their 4th Amendment Right to privacy regarding the government, then there must be notice given by the government, similar to that legally required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966), also known as the Miranda Warning. Meaning, that this instance of tracking via a cell phone is protected, IMHO, by the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.
The amount of faulty slippery slope and partisan interpretation of a confirmation bias going on in this post is really quite astounding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?