Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

[martybegan]

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.

They were specifically looking for this guy, and they found him.

Make them dump the rest of the data afterwards, but I don't see the issue here considering the warrant was to be used against a specific person.

The data could have also exonerated him if he was found to be at a different location.

ATM's don't broadcast your location when you use them.

 

[JLW]

Except she told the senate she believed in Stare Decicis.

It didn’t save Roe. This SCOTUS seems to have a dim view of stare decisis.

 

[postman]

ATM's don't broadcast your location when you use them.

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.

 

[martybegan]

It didn’t save Roe. This SCOTUS seems to have a dim view of stare decisis.

Stare Decisis doesn't mean you never overturn previous cases, it means you have to give serious consideration to the fact that a previous court found the position in question had merit.

If stare decisis was absolute, Plessy would still be in effect.

 

[postman]

They were specifically looking for this guy, and they found him.

Make them dump the rest of the data afterwards, but I don't see the issue here considering the warrant was to be used against a specific person.

The data could have also exonerated him if he was found to be at a different location.

As I said a warrant is supposed to be specific.
There's no problem getting one persons data.
It's getting EVERYONE's data that creates a problem.

 

[1srelluc]

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

Vietnamese.....I'd be "too ‘beaucoup".

 

[martybegan]

As I said a warrant is supposed to be specific.
There's no problem getting one persons data.
It's getting EVERYONE's data that creates a problem.

It's just location data, and again you can make the cops dump everyone else's info once they get the location of the person specified in the warrant.

It is specific. "We are looking for this guy"

 

[postman]

It didn’t save Roe. This SCOTUS seems to have a dim view of stare decisis.

And the republicans in the senate don't mind nominees lie to them.

 

[Blaster]

Vietnamese.....I'd be "too ‘beaucoup".

She would love me a long time.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Are they asking for dumps because the cell companies refuse to do traces due to time constraints?

 

[postman]

If stare decisis was absolute, Plessy would still be in effect.

The difference is they overturned a 7-1 decision with a 9-0 decision.

A greater majority should be required to overrule a precedence.

 

[postman]

It is specific. "We are looking for this guy"

But they are getting data on EVERYBODY, not just "this guy"

 

[martybegan]

The difference is they overturned a 7-1 decision with a 9-0 decision.

A greater majority should be required to overrule a precedence.

That rule isn't anywhere in the Constitution, nor is Stare decisis.

 

[martybegan]

But they are getting data on EVERYBODY, not just "this guy"

When the police question people for a murder they can only question the suspect if they are sure he did it?

I understand the civil liberties questions being brought up, but also try to understand the police need tools to catch bad guys.

If the warrant is only applicable to the person they are looking for, wouldn't any other data on other persons be inadmissible anyway?

 

[Delldude]

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.

DOJ is objecting?

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's all under the plain sight doctrine.

Yes, but rulings that happened before the item was even invented can't make something legal. Technology is changing so quickly that rulings from just 20 years ago can be outdated today.

 

[postman]

It's just location data, and again you can make the cops dump everyone else's info once they get the location of the person specified in the warrant.

That would be like trying to get a specific persons DNA sample, and getting a warrant for the Red Cross to turn over a sample of EVERYBODY who gave blood that day, and the police will go through them.
As opposed to a warrant for only the specific persons blood sample.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That would be like trying to get a specific persons DNA sample, and getting a warrant for the Red Cross to turn over a sample of EVERYBODY who gave blood that day, and the police will go through them.
As opposed to a warrant for only the specific persons blood sample.

They're so good now, they don't need blood for DNA. Have you ever watched Forensic Files? NUMEROUS cases were solved when they needed a perps DNA but didn't have enough for a warrant, they would follow the guy around at work and such, hiding in the bushes, and wait for him to dispose of a coffee cup, cig butt, etc and get his DNA off of that.

 

[postman]

Yes, but rulings that happened before the item was even invented can't make something legal. Technology is changing so quickly that rulings from just 20 years ago can be outdated today.

You mean how freedom of the press (1st amendment 1790's) doesn't apply to TV reporters?

 

[martybegan]

That would be like trying to get a specific persons DNA sample, and getting a warrant for the Red Cross to turn over a sample of EVERYBODY who gave blood that day, and the police will go through them.
As opposed to a warrant for only the specific persons blood sample.

People aren't broadcasting their DNA constantly over airwaves.

Giving blood is a one on one transaction done with the expectation of privacy.

When you blast your location over the airwaves, where is that expectation?