Tpoppa Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mobilephone-idUSKBN18W1RY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 Do they need a warrant to send units to follow you around town? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, what said: Do they need a warrant to send units to follow you around town? No, they do not need a warrant to follow you because you have no expectation to privacy when traveling around town. Do they need a warrant to search a place where you have an expectation of privacy? God damn right they do. And god damn right I have an expectation of privacy from the man on my digital world. My data at my bank is private and requires a warrant. God damn right my data at Verizon requires one too. Probable cause and a warrant are easy to get, no excuse not to. Why do you hate America and the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, what said: Do they need a warrant to send units to follow you around town? The 4th amendment provides no assurances against being followed Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 If it's only location tracking I don't really see a difference between looking at where the phone has been and tasking an officer/team to follow the person. The issue I can foresee popping up is law enforcement using location/GPS data for things other than simply looking at where somebody has been. Imagine getting a random ticket in the mail for speeding because a police department was running behind on speeding fines and they accessed GPS data from the last year for their area's section of interstate and sent out fines to anyone that they found exceeding the limit. That's a pretty extreme example but honestly it does sound like something somebody would do. On the other side, I certainly think that a warrant should be required to go through somebody's electronic devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, what said: If it's only location tracking I don't really see a difference between looking at where the phone has been and tasking an officer/team to follow the person. It's a digital record, being held by a private third party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 Just now, Tonik said: It's a digital record, being held by a private third party. Right, and that's where the muddy water comes in. If they are going back and digging through past locations trying to link you to "whatever/whenever", then there's a big problem. But lets be honest for a second and stop pretending that the carriers aren't already selling all of this information to anyone with $5 and some nipple tweakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, what said: But lets be honest for a second and stop pretending that the carriers aren't already selling all of this information to anyone with $5 and some nipple tweakers. I agree to that when I decide to do business with them. I did not agree to them giving it to the LEO's. And don't anyone start with 'who cares I have nothing to hide'. You have something to protect here, your privacy. It is yours, and lots of people way better than us died to give it to us. Don't be a dick and give it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm more on the side of requiring a warrant personally, but the court may see it as no different from following someone on foot. Not requiring a warrant could possibly open future privacy invasion doors that nobody wants touched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) I think this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Location history, personal logs, papers...call it want you want, this is exactly the type of violation that the 4th amendment was written to protect against. However, as much as the SC claims they are non political and unbiased, I fully expect to the SC to give into pressure from LE and Washington and rule the other way. Edited June 5, 2017 by Tpoppa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motocat12 Posted June 5, 2017 Report Share Posted June 5, 2017 my library offers to save your check out history but also says they'll give it to authorities if asked. Opt out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.