Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

[1srelluc]

Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

The case at the center of this ruling involves Cory Spurlock, who faces serious charges including conspiracy to distribute marijuana and alleged involvement in a murder-for-hire plot....

www.techspot.com

What just happened? A pivotal legal decision has emerged from Nevada, where a federal judge has questioned the constitutionality of a controversial investigative tool known as a "tower dump." This law enforcement method allows police to collect data en masse from cell towers, capturing information on every device that connects to a tower during a specific time window. The practice, which can sweep up the location and identifying details of thousands of cell phones, has been widely used to aid criminal investigations – and has also sparked intense debate over privacy and constitutional rights.

In her written opinion, US District Judge Miranda M. Du agreed, ruling that the tower dump constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and that the warrant failed to meet constitutional standards for specificity and probable cause.

Note this is a district court ruling. DOJ is appealing a similar ruling in Mississippi. Hopefully the MS case makes it to SCOTUS by next year.

Now lets get rid of plate readers, traffic cameras, and anything else LEO's use to encroach on our privacy.

I wish it could be extended to companies that use your info too but those "I agree to the terms" folks click on precludes that.

In this case an Obama Judge did good.....Sorta cute too.

 

[strollingbones]

leo attempted to get Waze banned...an app that alerts one to road conditions..traffic jams etc but it also tells you the location of police traps when reported by other wazers

WAZE get it now...it really does help with road trips

 

[shockedcanadian]

Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

The case at the center of this ruling involves Cory Spurlock, who faces serious charges including conspiracy to distribute marijuana and alleged involvement in a murder-for-hire plot....

www.techspot.com

What just happened? A pivotal legal decision has emerged from Nevada, where a federal judge has questioned the constitutionality of a controversial investigative tool known as a "tower dump." This law enforcement method allows police to collect data en masse from cell towers, capturing information on every device that connects to a tower during a specific time window. The practice, which can sweep up the location and identifying details of thousands of cell phones, has been widely used to aid criminal investigations – and has also sparked intense debate over privacy and constitutional rights.

In her written opinion, US District Judge Miranda M. Du agreed, ruling that the tower dump constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and that the warrant failed to meet constitutional standards for specificity and probable cause.

Note this is a district court ruling. DOJ is appealing a similar ruling in Mississippi. Hopefully the MS case makes it to SCOTUS by next year.

Now lets get rid of plate readers, traffic cameras, and anything else LEO's use to encroach on our privacy.

I wish it could be extended to companies that use your info too but those "I agree to the terms" folks click on precludes that.

In this case an Obama Judge did good.....Sorta cute too.

This is why I dont have an active cell phone and when I do it is only used for emergencies and rarely leaves my home. I only bought it for work purposes. I am not alone based on online comments Ive read by libertarians. Cell phones in which the battery can be removed also avoids this broad activity. The Creepy Ones in Canada dont need excuses to violate citizens rights since they do it regularly and the only Americans who support their methods would be the same weak people who would have collaborated with the nazis as far as I am concerned.

 

[JLW]

I agree the decision was a good one. The Trump DOJ is appealing. Given that the conservative majority on SCOTUS have a very narrow view of what constitutes a violation of illegal search and seizure under the 4th amendment and does not believe that a right to privacy exists under the Constitution, the conservative majority will most likely overrule her.

 

[TNHarley]

does not believe that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution

It doesnt. But there are many laws that give a right to privacy, in one way or another. Such as the Privacy Act, or HIPPA.
We do need updated laws to protect from govt overreach with technology.

 

[1srelluc]

I agree the decision was a good one. The Trump DOJ is appealing. Given that the conservative SCOTUS has a very narrow view of what constitutes a violation of illegal search and seizure under the 4th amendment and does not believe that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution, the conservative majority will most likely overrule her.

While I hate it will protect a criminal the .gov has way too much leeway into innocent people's affairs.....No matter who is in charge.

 

[Blaster]

That Obama judge looks hot. I'd bang her.

 

[martybegan]

While I hate it will protect a criminal the .gov has way too much leeway into innocent people's affairs.....No matter who is in charge.

Here's the thing though, where is the expected privacy when your device is actually signaling your location intentionally?

It is effectively constantly broadcasting "I am here"

 

[airplanemechanic]

leo attempted to get Waze banned...an app that alerts one to road conditions..traffic jams etc but it also tells you the location of police traps when reported by other wazers

WAZE get it now...it really does help with road trips

Google maps does the same thing. And FAR more people use it.

 

[postman]

Now lets get rid of plate readers, traffic cameras, and anything else LEO's use to encroach on our privacy.

You're about half a century too late on that one.
The supreme court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) and Horton v. California (1990) etc. already established their legality.

 

[1srelluc]

You're about half a century too late on that one.
The supreme court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) and Horton v. California (1990) etc. already established their legality.

Well, we have had near 35 years to think on it.....No thanks.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You're about half a century too late on that one.
The supreme court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) and Horton v. California (1990) etc. already established their legality.

Plate readers didn't exist in 1971.

 

[JLW]

It doesnt. But there are many laws that give a right to privacy, in one way or another. Such as the Privacy Act, or HIPPA.
We do need updated laws to protect from govt overreach with technology.

Eleven state constitutions explicitly recognize a right to privacy: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Washington.

My view is that a right to privacy exists under the “penumbra of rights” under the Constitution. Given the overturning of Roe that view is now in the minority.

Congress could pass a law outlawing tower dumps, but I would not hold my breathe.

 

[postman]

I agree the decision was a good one. The Trump DOJ is appealing. Given that the conservative majority on SCOTUS have a very narrow view of what constitutes a violation of illegal search and seizure under the 4th amendment and does not believe that a right to privacy exists under the Constitution, the conservative majority will most likely overrule her.

Carpenter v. United States (2018):
The Supreme Court case established that the government needs a warrant to access a person's cell phone location data.

Cell Tower Dumps:
Cell tower dumps, which involve collecting massive amounts of cell phone location data, also require a warrant, as they involve accessing sensitive personal information.

Remember a warrant needs probable cause, and the detail of items to be seized.

 

[1srelluc]

Here's the thing though, where is the expected privacy when your device is actually signaling your location intentionally?

It is effectively constantly broadcasting "I am here"

I turn those things off if I can.....Getting harder to do though.

 

[postman]

Here's the thing though, where is the expected privacy when your device is actually signaling your location intentionally?

It is effectively constantly broadcasting "I am here"

A warrant is supposed to be specific.
It would be like they suspect you of a crime, and get a warrant for the bank to turn over your ATM access records.

As opposed to the cell tower dump, which is like a warrant to the bank for EVERYBODIES ATM access records.

 

[JLW]

Carpenter v. United States (2018):
The Supreme Court case established that the government needs a warrant to access a person's cell phone location data.

Cell Tower Dumps:
Cell tower dumps, which involve collecting massive amounts of cell phone location data, also require a warrant, as they involve accessing sensitive personal information.

Remember a warrant needs probable cause, and the detail of items to be seized.

Carpenter was a 5-4 decision with RBG in the majority. She is gone. Will ACB rule the same? Maybe; maybe not.

 

[postman]

Plate readers didn't exist in 1971.

It's all under the plain sight doctrine.

 

[strollingbones]

and then the spouses who use trackers to track their so what is with that? and can that be used in court?

 

[postman]

Carpenter was a 5-4 decision with RBG in the majority. She is gone. Will ACB rule the same? Maybe; maybe not.

Except she told the senate she believed in Stare Decicis.