Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 28, 2017

The privacy of emails, photos stored in the cloud, even heart rate history from a smartwatch could be at stake, according to civil libertarians, as the Supreme Court takes up a potential blockbuster case after Thanksgiving. When they return to the bench after the holiday, the justices will weigh whether the history of cell phone locations stored by a phone service provider is searchable without a warrant. The case, Carpenter v. U.S., centers on Timothy Carpenter, who argues the government violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure when it obtained his cell phone location records from MetroPCS and Sprint without a warrant. Authorities then used that data as trial evidence to convict him of a string of robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio from December 2010 to March 2011.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Thankfully, the Nazis at the ACLU are taking his case.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 12:29 AM | Reply

"it obtained his cell phone location records from MetroPCS and Sprint without a warrant."

Sounds like a consumer protection issue more than a Fourth Amendment issue.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 12:36 AM | Reply

#2 You don't even believe in the Fourth Amendment?

"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."

I would say that "papers" includes electronic communications. For instance, you have to get a court order to do a wire-tap. But it also includes all business transactions you have, right? It really, really disturbs me that the government thinks it can rifle through all your business transactions without a warrant supported by probable cause. Since when did that happen? That opens everybody up to the slightest suspicion, and even fighting the government can ruin your life due to expense. The government has tens of thousands of attack lawyers. How much money do you have?

But hey, maybe you can plead out and get a minimal sentence in a for-profit prison, right?

Jesus, I am such a freedom freak. Rights. Liberty. Yadda yadda yadda.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 12:47 AM | Reply

Oh, wait. I forgot I was a "Nazi coddler". Carry on, government.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 12:50 AM | Reply

"#2 You don't even believe in the Fourth Amendment?"

No, it's not that.
I don't think the defendant will prevail.
As for believing in the Fourth Amendment, take it up with the majority if I'm right, or the minority if I'm wrong, which I hope to be.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 01:27 AM | Reply

"It really, really disturbs me that the government thinks it can rifle through all your business transactions without a warrant supported by probable cause."

All?

Might want to narrow that down to history of cell phone locations.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 01:31 AM | Reply

self-incrimination is supposed to be protected, and guaranteed.

unless you want to follow me around or track me, legally, which this is not, i don't have to answer.

#7 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-27 10:40 PM | Reply

this is beyond: papers, please.

#8 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-27 10:41 PM | Reply

this is beyond: papers, please.

Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-27 10:41 PM | Reply

The electronics privacy act covers this.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 10:44 PM | Reply

If it is a 5-4 decision, don't expect it to stand unmodified. Congress can choose to confront this issue.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-27 10:48 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The electronic communication privacy act covers this.

Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 10:44 PM | Reply

CORRECTION.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 10:49 PM | Reply

"Congress can choose to confront this issue."

Is that the same Congress about to abolish Net Neutrality?

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 11:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"this is beyond: papers, please."

It completely obviates the need for pappers because your cell phone tells your cell provider where you are at all times, and the Feds just get that from the cell phone provider.

You're not even being searched!

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 11:02 PM | Reply

Thankfully, the Nazis at the ACLU are taking his case.

#1 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Nazis for defending personal freedoms under the 4th Amendment.... Makes perfect sense to you huh?

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 02:40 PM | Reply

Is that the same Congress about to abolish Net Neutrality?

#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-11-27 11:01 PM | FLAG:

No, that's an FCC regulatory rule change. Congress could act separately, but don't hold your breath. As noted though, Net Neutrality with the current OIO doesn't exist due to industry lobbied loopholes, later affirmed by the federal appeals court.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-28 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

to convict him of a string of robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio from December 2010 to March 2011.

The bigger question is, who the F would ever rob a Radio Shack...they all look like they were recently looted.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 05:44 PM | Reply

It's the same Congress that won't lift a finger, which is all it would take, to stop the FCC from killing Net Neutrality.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 05:46 PM | Reply

#17

But it still isn't Congress that is abolishing the rule, if you want Net Neutrality put into law, send your robo letters to your congressperson, not the FCC.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 05:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Congress could act separately, but don't hold your breath."

If they have the power, but don't use it, it's Congress's fault.

"But it still isn't Congress that is abolishing the rule"

If they have the power, but don't use it, it's Congress's fault. It's Congress who is ultimately responsible for its own action, or inaction.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 06:58 PM | Reply

#13 not a search in the archaic sense. but a search all the same. these should be private not public nor even corporate records.

#20 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-29 03:17 AM | Reply

Thankfully, the Nazis at the ACLU are taking his case.

I remember when "conservatives" believed in "limited government" and thought you needed things like a "warrant" before you could search someone's records and arrest them. Those were simpler times.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-29 09:07 AM | Reply

But beyond the law, the government is arguing that Carpenter lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy because he voluntarily turned his location information over to a third party when he signed up for cell service. It's a legal theory known as the third-party doctrine

I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this would be their argument as, IIRC, it's been used in the past. The only reason I remember that is I discussed the idea with a friend who's a lawyer for a large telecommunications company.

And since 2010 and 2011 when Carpenter's data was collected, he said providers have started saving location information for text messages and data connections in addition to calls, even when a phone is sitting in a bag or pocket and checking for emails or weather updates.

I'm curious as to what resolution this can be attained at, as in my head I'm envisioning the ability for each of us carrying a phone to have a Family Circus-style map of our daily activities drawn with relatively high accuracy.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-29 09:36 AM | Reply

"because he voluntarily turned his location information over to a third party"

Can people un-volunteer, or is simply using the phone "voluntarily giviing" your information to the cell tower?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 09:52 AM | Reply

The electronic communication privacy act covers this.

Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-27 10:44 PM | Reply

CORRECTION.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr

Doesn't seem to be working very well. I would suggest that you do not take your cell phone to any protest in Trump's Fantasyland anymore.

Prosecutors Are Mining Data From The Cellphones Of Inauguration Day Arrestees

dcist.com

Feds Have Found A Way To Search Locked Phones Of 100 Trump Protestors

www.forbes.com

www.theverge.com

www.washingtonpost.com

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-29 05:27 PM | Reply

Prosecutors Are Mining Data From The Cellphones Of Inauguration Day Arrestees[sic]

Feds Have Found A Way To Search Locked Phones Of 100 Trump Protestors

"... pursuant to lawfully issued search warrants ..."

Just to put the hysterical headlines in perspective.

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-29 09:25 PM | Reply

Just to put the hysterical headlines in perspective.

#25 | Posted by et_al

The truth is "hysterical" now? People need to be aware that if they want to protest their phones will be confiscated and not returned for extended periods. This can be a big hardship to some. They also need to be aware that with a warrant their personal data is not safe and warrants will be issued.

I recommend getting a burner phone if you plan on attending protests in Trumpland.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-30 01:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort