Mass phone tracking via cell tower dumps ruled unconstitutional

[martybegan]

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

More like questioning other people besides the suspect.

 

[martybegan]

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

Then who does the search?

Who pays the cell company do to the search?

 

[postman]

More like questioning other people besides the suspect.

Excerpt you are taking EVERYBODIES data into custody.

 

[martybegan]

Excerpt you are taking EVERYBODIES data into custody.

You take people's statements and don't throw them away when you are questioning them.

 

[postman]

Then who does the search?

Who pays the cell company do to the search?

Let them send in their computer guys to search through the pile of data, and only extract what they're looking for.

It's just like any other search warrant, where they go to somebodies house and only take the items mentioned in the search warrant.

They don't roll in with a moving truck and take the entire contents of his house.

 

[martybegan]

Let them send in their computer guys to search through the pile of data, and only extract what they're looking for.

It's just like any other search warrant, where they go to somebodies house and only take the items mentioned in the search warrant.

They don't roll in with a moving truck and take the entire contents of his house.

I know the phone companies aren't going to go with this willingly. They would prefer to just download and send.

They still search through the entire house to find those items.

 

[postman]

You take people's statements and don't throw them away when you are questioning them.

You left out, people's statements are VOLUNTARY.

Of course you could take them into custody as a "material witness" if you were sure they had the information you're after. And even then, you can only hold them for 24 hours.

 

[martybegan]

You left out, people's statements are VOLUNTARY.

Of course you could take them into custody as a "material witness" if you were sure they had the information you're after. And even then, you can only hold them for 24 hours.

And owning a cell phone that broadcasts your location constantly is voluntary.

 

[postman]

They still search through the entire house to find those items.

That's the point. They search the entire house, but they only seize the specific items named on the warrant, and nothing else.

 

[postman]

And owning a cell phone that broadcasts your location constantly is voluntary.

You know in Florida it's illegal to listen to a cellphone conversation without a warrant.
Some aspects of cellphone communications are covered by an expectation of privacy.

 

[martybegan]

That's the point. They search the entire house, but they only seize the specific items named on the warrant, and nothing else.

And as per the warrant issued in this case, they only used the data applicable to the person who got the warrant issued against them.

 

[martybegan]

You know in Florida it's illegal to listen to a cellphone conversation without a warrant.
Some aspects of cellphone communications are covered by an expectation of privacy.

Some aspects. in this case the information was location, not comms.

And they had a warrant in this case anyway.

 

[postman]

And owning a cell phone that broadcasts your location constantly is voluntary.

So in OnStar.

But I doubt you would go along with them trying to find a criminal by getting the OnStar data of everybody in North America.

 

[postman]

And as per the warrant issued in this case, they only used the data applicable to the person who got the warrant issued against them.

But they "seized" the data of EVERYBODY. But only one person's data was listed on the search warrant for them to take.

 

[martybegan]

So in OnStar.

But I doubt you would go along with them trying to find a criminal by getting the OnStar data of everybody in North America.

That would be a blind search. In this case they had the name of the person they were looking for, and that was part of the warrant.

 

[Care4all]

A filmmaker can get a warrant?

So the Public can pay money to get a cell phone data dump, to invade our privacy, and that is okay???

 

[martybegan]

But they "seized" the data of EVERYBODY. But only one person's data was listed on the search warrant for them to take.

Then the government needs to figure out a way to split the difference. If you read the decision they allowed the information to proceed with the case because the police used the procedure in good faith.

Which to me also brings up questions of mootness since the whole point of the suit was to get the search removed to aid the guy with the warrant.

 

[postman]

Some aspects. in this case the information was location, not comms.

And they had a warrant in this case anyway.

As I said, the warrant for a data DUMP is overly broad, since the 4th specifically says

...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Particularly describing.

 

[martybegan]

So the Public can pay money to get a cell phone data dump, to invade our privacy, and that is okay???

This isn't what this case is about. This is about a warrant for a specific person's location via cell phone data, which the police requested as a dump so THEY could search for the specific guy in the warrant.

 

[martybegan]

As I said, the warrant for a data DUMP is overly broad, since the 4th specifically says

...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Particularly describing.

Search the cell data for this guy's information.