Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thanks Tree16Thanks
  • 2 Post By Dittohead not!
  • 3 Post By Devil505
  • 3 Post By Ian Jeffrey
  • 1 Post By StanStill
  • 5 Post By Ian Jeffrey
  • 2 Post By Dittohead not!

Thread: Score one for the Fourth Amendment

  1. #1
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    12,737
    Thanks
    6869

    From
    The formerly great golden state

    Score one for the Fourth Amendment

    Justices adopt new privacy rules for cellphone tracking

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says police generally need a search warrant if they want to track criminal suspects' movements by collecting information about where they've used their cellphones.

    The justices' 5-4 decision Friday is a victory for privacy in the digital age. Police collection of cellphone tower information has become an important tool in criminal investigations.
    Just one tiny baby step towards liberty.
    Thanks from Libertine and One

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,807
    Thanks
    32688

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Justices adopt new privacy rules for cellphone tracking



    Just one tiny baby step towards liberty.
    I think this is wrongly decided. That data is not controlled by the end user, and there is no reason to impute an expectation of privacy to cell phone users.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    64,183
    Thanks
    20892

    From
    Mass and Florida
    As an ex Fed and a citizen, I agree with this SCOTUS opinion.
    Thanks from Hollywood, MaryAnne and One

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,807
    Thanks
    32688

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As an ex Fed and a citizen, I agree with this SCOTUS opinion.
    I don't. In my view, CCTV, facial recognition technology, license plate recognition systems, etc. create novel questions of the government's power to invade the privacy of citizens, but not new privacy rights.

    What we do in public was always observable and clearly not private. The technology to record and analyze those movements does not change this.

    In my mind, these are different from infrared and listening devices that can be directed at buildings, including private homes.

  5. #5
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,598
    Thanks
    32734

    From
    Vulcan
    Carpenter v. United States

    My first reaction - before perusing the syllabus - was that the case was fully consistent with Katz which turns out to be the first point the Court addressed.

    I think this is the right decision. Absent a constitutional exception, there is no reason the state should be able to get around the warrant requirement.
    Thanks from MaryAnne, NightSwimmer and One

  6. #6
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    10,644
    Thanks
    11177

    From
    Work
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    I think this is wrongly decided. That data is not controlled by the end user, and there is no reason to impute an expectation of privacy to cell phone users.
    Why should we not expect the same level of privacy we had before the invention of cell phones?

    Seems like they are saying "No, the government cannot place a tracking device on every citizen which they then get to look at whenever they like. They have to talk to a judge to show it is related to a criminal investigation and get a warrant. That the government didn't place the tracking device on people—but is instead included in a consumer product that is practically a requirement for modern life—is irrelevant. They likewise do not get to listen to phone conversations of anyone at any time. They need a warrant for that too, even though the technology exists to allow those conversations to be listened to at any time."

    I think they got it right. Simply because the government promises that they only track people in the investigation of crime isn't sufficient for me to think that they won't use information they collect which doesn't show evidence of a crime. What if, in the course of scooping up data, they find that I am in meetings/discussions with others about having the chief of police indicted for corruption? If I am someone who is outspoken about police malfeasance, does allowing this tracking without a warrant add another tool for crooked police to harass or otherwise humiliate critics?
    Thanks from Dittohead not!

  7. #7
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,598
    Thanks
    32734

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Why should we not expect the same level of privacy we had before the invention of cell phones?
    I think this illustrates the fundamental point: that technological developments do not render the 4th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, irrelevant. It continues to apply to new things.
    Thanks from One, BitterPill, StanStill and 2 others

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,998
    Thanks
    1658

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As an ex Fed and a citizen, I agree with this SCOTUS opinion.
    Me too. and if Donald J Trump not won, our personal liberties and right to privacy would have further eroded.

  9. #9
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    12,737
    Thanks
    6869

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Me too. and if Donald J Trump not won, our personal liberties and right to privacy would have further eroded.
    Because Trump runs the SCOTUS?
    Thanks from NightSwimmer and MaryAnne

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,998
    Thanks
    1658

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I think this illustrates the fundamental point: that technological developments do not render the 4th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, irrelevant. It continues to apply to new things.
    You can't even get your own land line phone records without a court order, yet cell companies sell your records, why would they not be treated the same under the law?

Similar Threads

  1. Another Good SCOTUS Fourth Amendment Ruling
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 31st May 2018, 03:12 PM
  2. Good Fourth Amendment Ruling by SCOTUS
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14th May 2018, 01:55 PM
  3. The Fourth Amendment
    By bluesman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 1st July 2013, 04:00 PM
  4. Score one for the 1st amendment
    By meridian5455 in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24th June 2013, 06:21 AM
  5. General Thoughts on the Fourth Amendment
    By new_publius in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31st January 2012, 06:48 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed