Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

[airplanemechanic]

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

What?

 

[postman]

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

You can't violate the constitution just because "it's faster"

In that case, they would have to set up a separate "filter team" to receive the data, if they want the raw data dump.

 

[martybegan]

You can't violate the constitution just because "it's faster"

In that case, they would have to set up a separate "filter team" to receive the data, if they want the raw data dump.

I can see that happening. A "black box' team that can only look for "person X" and once he's found and his data taken, purge the rest.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I can see that happening. A "black box' team that can only look for "person X" and once he's found and his data taken, purge the rest.

Absolutely not. I don't trust our gov't.

If they want to search someone's cellular data, get a warrant for that person. But these "dragnets" of sweeping data dumps are obviously illegal. It would be like knowing a killer lives in a neighborhood, and rather than going talk to the suspect, talking to EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD even though you know 99.99% of them have nothing to do with the killing.

 

[martybegan]

Absolutely not. I don't trust our gov't.

If they want to search someone's cellular data, get a warrant for that person. But these "dragnets" of sweeping data dumps are obviously illegal. It would be like knowing a killer lives in a neighborhood, and rather than going talk to the suspect, talking to EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD even though you know 99.99% of them have nothing to do with the killing.

Someone has to search through the data to find the person in question.

The warrant was specific for this one guy.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Someone has to search through the data to find the person in question.

The warrant was specific for this one guy.

But you're not entitled to all the other data of everyone else.

You don't get to gather data like dandelions and dig for what you want. That's not how our legal system works.

 

[postman]

No, I mean like how "right to privacy" doesn't extend to vehicles on the roads because when the "right to privacy" amendment was enacted, we had no public roads, transportation, etc.

No public roads?
What do you think post roads are? That congress has to power to create.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 explicitly gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No public roads?
What do you think post roads are? That congress has to power to create.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 explicitly gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

Yes but we didn't have public roads until the early 1900's really. The interstate system didn't even begin until the 50's. Nobody was talking about privacy rights in the horse and buggy days.

 

[1srelluc]

I can see that happening. A "black box' team that can only look for "person X" and once he's found and his data taken, purge the rest.

Sounds good till:

 

[martybegan]

But you're not entitled to all the other data of everyone else.

You don't get to gather data like dandelions and dig for what you want. That's not how our legal system works.

Did they want and use the other data?

Or did the cell company just hedge and say "We can't do this" so the police said "fuck it, give us the dump and we can search it"

Did they even use the other data on people outside the warrant for anything?

 

[postman]

Someone has to search through the data to find the person in question.

The warrant was specific for this one guy.

A data DUMP, is not specific to a single person.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds good till:

Then the police have to lose cell phone tracking as a tool?

 

[postman]

Did they want and use the other data?

Or did the cell company just hedge and say "We can't do this" so the police said "fuck it, give us the dump and we can search it"

Did they even use the other data on people outside the warrant for anything?

I think this answers the question

Sounds good till:

 

[martybegan]

A data DUMP, is not specific to a single person.

The warrant asked for the dump to look for a specific person.

 

[martybegan]

I think this answers the question

So again, we ban all cell tower searches?

 

[Care4all]

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.

Then how did 2000 Mules get the cell phone data dumps to allegedly track mules to the vicinity of ballot boxes?

 

[postman]

Absolutely not. I don't trust our gov't.

If they want to search someone's cellular data, get a warrant for that person. But these "dragnets" of sweeping data dumps are obviously illegal. It would be like knowing a killer lives in a neighborhood, and rather than going talk to the suspect, talking to EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD even though you know 99.99% of them have nothing to do with the killing.

Then it should be like when they subpoena a lawyers e-mails. Since some are lawyer-client privileged, they set up a "filter team" that separates our any privileged communications, and only forwards the records responsive to the subpoena.

 

[martybegan]

Then how did 2000 Mules get the cell phone data dumps to allegedly track mules to the vicinity of ballot boxes?

A filmmaker can get a warrant?

 

[postman]

The warrant asked for the dump to look for a specific person.

That's like asking for everyone in the town to be arrested, so you can find a specific person among them.

 

[postman]

So again, we ban all cell tower searches?

Searches are fine. It's overbroad data "dumps" that violate the 4th amendment.