User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Supreme Court Rules Warrants Required for Cellphone Location Data

  1. #1

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Supreme Court Rules Warrants Required for Cellphone Location Data

    Supreme Court Rules Warrants Required for Cellphone Location Data. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday imposed limits on the ability of police to obtain cellphone data pinpointing the past location of criminal suspects in a victory for digital privacy advocates and a setback for law enforcement authorities. In the 5-4 ruling, the court said police generally need a court-approved warrant to get access to the data, setting a higher legal hurdle than previously existed under federal law. The court said obtaining such data without a warrant from wireless carriers, as police routinely do, amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. In the ruling written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court decided in favor of Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted in several armed robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Ohio and Michigan with the help of past cellphone location data that linked him to the crime scenes. Roberts was joined by the court's four liberal justices in the majority. The court's other four conservatives dissented. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information," Roberts said. He added that the ruling still allows the police to avoid obtaining warrants for other types of business records. Roberts said the ruling did not address other emerging digital privacy fights, including whether police need warrants to access real-time location information.
    https://valliantnews.com/2019/11/04/...location-data/

    I am disappointed in the conservative justices.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Just AnotherPerson (11-05-2019),Lummy (11-05-2019),NapRover (11-05-2019),Private Pickle (11-05-2019)

  3. #2
    Points: 84,798, Level: 70
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    27585
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    11,128
    Points
    84,798
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    14,094
    Thanked 9,554x in 5,668 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Supreme Court Rules Warrants Required for Cellphone Location Data. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday imposed limits on the ability of police to obtain cellphone data pinpointing the past location of criminal suspects in a victory for digital privacy advocates and a setback for law enforcement authorities. In the 5-4 ruling, the court said police generally need a court-approved warrant to get access to the data, setting a higher legal hurdle than previously existed under federal law. The court said obtaining such data without a warrant from wireless carriers, as police routinely do, amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. In the ruling written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court decided in favor of Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted in several armed robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Ohio and Michigan with the help of past cellphone location data that linked him to the crime scenes. Roberts was joined by the court's four liberal justices in the majority. The court's other four conservatives dissented. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information," Roberts said. He added that the ruling still allows the police to avoid obtaining warrants for other types of business records. Roberts said the ruling did not address other emerging digital privacy fights, including whether police need warrants to access real-time location information.
    https://valliantnews.com/2019/11/04/...location-data/

    I am disappointed in the conservative justices.
    Why would you be disappointed? They upheld the constitution. A warrant can still be obtained to get the information they need, they just have to get a warrant first.
    We are all brothers and sisters in humanity. We are all made from the same dust of stars. We cannot be separated because all life is interconnected.

  4. #3
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just AnotherPerson View Post
    Why would you be disappointed? They upheld the constitution. A warrant can still be obtained to get the information they need, they just have to get a warrant first.
    No. They dissented.
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Private Pickle For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (11-05-2019),Just AnotherPerson (11-05-2019)

  6. #4

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am disappointed with the conservative justices not requiring a warrant/subpoena -- which I view as a conservative approach.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (11-05-2019),Just AnotherPerson (11-05-2019),Lummy (11-05-2019)

  8. #5
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I am disappointed with the conservative justices not requiring a warrant/subpoena -- which I view as a conservative approach.
    Well it’s cause their not true conservatives.
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Private Pickle For This Useful Post:

    Just AnotherPerson (11-05-2019)

  10. #6
    Points: 84,798, Level: 70
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Just AnotherPerson's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    27585
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    11,128
    Points
    84,798
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    14,094
    Thanked 9,554x in 5,668 Posts
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I am disappointed with the conservative justices not requiring a warrant/subpoena -- which I view as a conservative approach.
    I misunderstood. But I am glad it passed. It seems lately everything has been passing to remove our rights to privacy, this is definitely a small win. We should take them anywhere we can get them. Great post DG.
    We are all brothers and sisters in humanity. We are all made from the same dust of stars. We cannot be separated because all life is interconnected.

  11. #7
    Points: 74,571, Level: 66
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 879
    Overall activity: 40.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314970
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,612
    Points
    74,571
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,716
    Thanked 21,087x in 12,282 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    If you watch shows like NCIS and Law & Order, the cops are accessing people's cellphone records or "pinging" their phones to locate them in real time about every ten minutes, and I think that may contribute to the general public's impression that such measures are always so urgent that having to obtain a warrant would be a serious and unreasonable obstruction to law enforcement. As with certain other technological tools, my first impulse is to side with the folks who want to give the police the benefit of the doubt and let them use it as needed - but then I remind myself about the potential that such things have for abuse, and of the privacy and due process considerations.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    Lummy (11-05-2019)

  13. #8
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I am disappointed with the conservative justices not requiring a warrant/subpoena -- which I view as a conservative approach.

    Why don't they just require wireless companies to see a warrant before releasing information? If the wireless carriers are regularly giving out the info to law enforcement, they could be giving it out to anyone who asks.

    Another related issue is the recordings from devices such as Alexa who may contain information about crimes. As far as I know, Amazon doesn't give that info out freely, and that's probably how the wireless carriers should approach the situation.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  14. #9
    Points: 445,362, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    339112
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66,765
    Points
    445,362
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    8,785
    Thanked 18,315x in 10,924 Posts
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First I dont disagree nor agree with the decision I am ambivalent about it

    2 Points

    Many if not most traffic accidents police access cell phones to see if drivers were texting or talking as a cause for the accident. This is for citations and insurance companies, that will cease and make it harder for the victims of accidents due to texting or talking to prove culpability. Police will not seek warrants for accidents for most situations.


    Like Standing Wolf mentioned that tv gives false perceptions, they also give false perceptions on obtaining warrants, they take time and sometimes a good while.
    The lionshare of americans have far more to worry about with Google and facebook than they do Police Warrants.
    LETS GO BRANDON
    F Joe Biden

  15. #10
    Points: 41,437, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 413
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6307
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    12,618
    Points
    41,437
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    4,948
    Thanked 6,307x in 4,359 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The conservatives' position confuses me too.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Lummy For This Useful Post:

    Just AnotherPerson (11-05-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts