Catherine Crump and Megan Graham, The San Francisco Chronicle; A win for digital privacy — but that’s just the tip of the government surveillance iceberg
"It’s 2018. Digital technologies have been woven into the fabric of daily
life for more than a decade. It’s time for courts and legislatures to
start resolving at a more rapid pace the circumstances under which our
cell phones and smart appliances will also be snitches."
Showing posts with label Carpenter v. US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carpenter v. US. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2018
Judge Facciola Says Carpenter Decision May Signal the End of the Third Party Doctrine; JD Supra, July 5, 2018
JD Supra; Judge Facciola Says Carpenter Decision May Signal the End of the Third Party Doctrine
"The old view of the third-party doctrine must yield to new concerns about recent technology or what CJ Roberts called “the critical issue” of “basic Fourth Amendment concerns about arbitrary government power” that are “wrought by digital technology.”
Overall, the Roberts Court seems to understand electronic privacy’s importance, especially when Carpenter is coupled with the previous decisions in US v Jones (2011), which required a warrant before police placed a GPS tracker on a vehicle and Riley v California (2014) which forbade warrantless searches of a cell phone during an arrest."
"The old view of the third-party doctrine must yield to new concerns about recent technology or what CJ Roberts called “the critical issue” of “basic Fourth Amendment concerns about arbitrary government power” that are “wrought by digital technology.”
Overall, the Roberts Court seems to understand electronic privacy’s importance, especially when Carpenter is coupled with the previous decisions in US v Jones (2011), which required a warrant before police placed a GPS tracker on a vehicle and Riley v California (2014) which forbade warrantless searches of a cell phone during an arrest."
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals; Investor's Business Daily, June 20, 2017
Betsy McCaughey, Investor's Business Daily; How Privacy Purists Are Helping Criminals
"Privacy purists across the political spectrum — including the libertarian Cato Institute — are lining up against law enforcement. They argue that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans must be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" from unreasonable searches. That's a precious right.
But as the store owners robbed by Carpenter will tell you, there's also a need to be secure from criminals.
Not to mention terrorists.
The Carpenter case involves records of calls made in the past. What about a new technology police departments are using to track cellphone locations in real time? It can track fugitives, find abducted children, even foil terrorist attacks.
It's a suitcase-size device called a Stingray that mimics cell towers."
"Privacy purists across the political spectrum — including the libertarian Cato Institute — are lining up against law enforcement. They argue that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans must be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" from unreasonable searches. That's a precious right.
But as the store owners robbed by Carpenter will tell you, there's also a need to be secure from criminals.
Not to mention terrorists.
The Carpenter case involves records of calls made in the past. What about a new technology police departments are using to track cellphone locations in real time? It can track fugitives, find abducted children, even foil terrorist attacks.
It's a suitcase-size device called a Stingray that mimics cell towers."
Sunday, June 18, 2017
The Supreme Court Phone Location Case Will Decide the Future of Privacy; Mother Board, June 16, 2017
Stephen Vladeck, MotherBoard; The Supreme Court Phone Location Case Will Decide the Future of Privacy
"Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide if police can track a person’s cell phone location without a warrant. It's the most important privacy case in a generation.
For all of the attention paid to former FBI Director Jim Comey's highly anticipated testimony before the Senate intelligence committee last Thursday, the most important constitutional law development from last week took place across the street (and three days earlier), when the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in Carpenter v. United States later this year—though exactly when, we're not sure.
Carpenter raises a specific question about whether Americans have an expectation of privacy in historical "cell-site location information" ("CSLI")."
"Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide if police can track a person’s cell phone location without a warrant. It's the most important privacy case in a generation.
For all of the attention paid to former FBI Director Jim Comey's highly anticipated testimony before the Senate intelligence committee last Thursday, the most important constitutional law development from last week took place across the street (and three days earlier), when the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in Carpenter v. United States later this year—though exactly when, we're not sure.
Carpenter raises a specific question about whether Americans have an expectation of privacy in historical "cell-site location information" ("CSLI")."
Friday, June 9, 2017
Your Cellphone Privacy Rights May Depend on This Supreme Court Case; Mother Jones, June 9, 2017
Samantha Michaels, Mother Jones; Your Cellphone Privacy Rights May Depend on This Supreme Court Case
"There’s a good chance that while you’re reading this, your cellphone is either in your pocket or within arm’s reach. That phone helps produce tons of identifying data about you—and where you are located. The future privacy of that information may depend on a landmark case that the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear. Carpenter v. United States asks whether the government can get records from phone companies showing the location of customers without first obtaining a warrant. It centers on a man in Michigan named Timothy Carpenter who was convicted of six robberies after his phone company turned over his location data to authorities.
Carpenter’s case could have broad ramifications for people across the country. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that the future of surveillance law hinges on how the Supreme Court rules in this case,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote in the Washington Post. Here are some more reasons why you should be following this one:"
"There’s a good chance that while you’re reading this, your cellphone is either in your pocket or within arm’s reach. That phone helps produce tons of identifying data about you—and where you are located. The future privacy of that information may depend on a landmark case that the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear. Carpenter v. United States asks whether the government can get records from phone companies showing the location of customers without first obtaining a warrant. It centers on a man in Michigan named Timothy Carpenter who was convicted of six robberies after his phone company turned over his location data to authorities.
Carpenter’s case could have broad ramifications for people across the country. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that the future of surveillance law hinges on how the Supreme Court rules in this case,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, wrote in the Washington Post. Here are some more reasons why you should be following this one:"
Monday, June 5, 2017
Supreme Court to decide if a warrant is needed to track a suspect through cellphone records; Washington Post, June 5, 2017
Robert Barnes, Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if a warrant is needed to track a suspect through cellphone records
"The Supreme Court next term will decide whether law enforcement authorities need a warrant to track a suspect through his cellphone records, justices announced Monday.
The case seeks to resolve a digital-age question that has divided lower courts relying on past Supreme Court precedents about privacy."
"The Supreme Court next term will decide whether law enforcement authorities need a warrant to track a suspect through his cellphone records, justices announced Monday.
The case seeks to resolve a digital-age question that has divided lower courts relying on past Supreme Court precedents about privacy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)