SCOTUS falls short of deeming geofence warrants unconstitutional, though. //
The Fourth Amendment protects a user’s “location history,” the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The same logic already applied to a cellphone’s tracking, and the high court found “no good reason exists to reach a different result for Location History” collected by third parties like Google.
Split 6-3, the majority agreed that the government needs a warrant and must show reasonable cause to turn a phone’s location-tracking services into a government surveillance tool. //
According to Alito, the majority announced a “new rule” that will “unleash” “upheaval” in Fourth Amendment law, requiring that “the police must obtain a warrant every time they access any cell-phone location information from a third party, however brief the duration, however innocuous the request, and however voluntarily that information was disclosed by the user.” //
SirOmega Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
24y
6,246
Subscriptor++
Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy, and governmental “intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search.” Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296, 304. The Amendment’s “basic purpose” is “to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials,” id., at 303, and it was designed “to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance,” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595. Pp. 10–29.
Click to expand...
On this same ground, can we determine that Flock's new cameras that ping your phone wifi, bluetooth, airpods, car, etc. are also a fourth amendment search since Flock is basically taking a digital inventory of what devices are inside a closed and locked vehicle when it drives by their camera? //
Tactical Finesse Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
4m
1,116
pondo said:
I think it only becomes a 4th amendment issue when the cops access that data. That's one of the things I really don't like about Flock, Palantir, etc; they are not the government so your "rights" are a bit limited. I suspect they'd be free to share that data with the extended car warranty folks.
They'll share the data to anyone with a credit card....and it is extremely cheap. I priced out a data set from one of these brokers for work.
