Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#31

Post by ceejayoz »

mothballed wrote: post #29
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most of the decisions of the "conservative" court have been along the lines that congress should do its job. They have repeatedly reduced Congressional powers, including today, where they basically said Congress can't setup genuinely independent agencies (in Slaughter). Or when they kneecapped the VRA. Some of them likely subscribe privately to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory .

Slaughter determined that agencies congress had ceded to the executive branch had control of the executive. It doesn't stop congress from directly exercising that power instead. It just says you can't play the fuck-fuck game where you pretend to create an agency in the executive branch but actually violate the constitution by trying to create a new branch.

> Slaughter determined that agencies congress had ceded to the executive branch had control of the executive.

The law Congress passed set rules requiring cause for a firing of an FTC commissioner.

It appears they now lack that power that they've had for almost a century.

Or Alito's new "history and tradition" test, invented out of whole cloth to take out abortion but now being applied to all sorts of things Congress does.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#32

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

ceejayoz wrote: post #28
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe this data is persisted, unless they tore open the device to extract logs.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/amazon-releases-echo-dat...

This article is about audio recordings. There's no mention of Bluetooth nor any mention as to if there were any relevant recordings, which as I understand it are not stored on the device at all.

This smells like an urban myth.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#33

Post by bee_rider »

js2 wrote: post #10

From https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-rules-that-law-enfo... Additional details: > The information that Google provided to law enforcement officials came in three tranches. First, Google gave law enforcement officials a list of the 19 accounts (but without the names attached to those accounts) linked to devices that were within 150 meters of the bank during the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. Second,…

It is a little confusing, they ruled that the search was not legitimate, but this didn’t end up helping the defendant? I’m definitely missing an important nuance here but I’m not sure what it is…

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#34

Post by mothballed »

ceejayoz wrote: post #31
mothballed wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slaughter determined that agencies congress had ceded to the executive branch had control of the executive. It doesn't stop congress from directly exercising that power instead. It just says you can't play the fuck-fuck game where you pretend to create an agency in the executive branch but actually violate the constitution by trying to create a new branch.

> Slaughter determined that agencies congress had ceded to the executive branch had control of the executive. The law Congress passed set rules requiring cause for a firing of an FTC commissioner. It appears they now lack that power that they've had for almost a century. Or Alito's new "history and tradition" test, invented out of whole cloth to take out abortion but now being applied to all sorts of things Congress…

Statutes don't supersede the constitution and passing one doesn't create that power.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#35

Post by wyldberry »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
TimorousBestie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pet theory that it’s difficult for her to convince the far right wing of the court to let her write the majority opinion, and that’s part of what is fueling these uncharacteristic or “independent” moments.

When the Court rules to the center, I think Roberts likes to take it himself or let a liberal Justice write it so it looks like the court is balanced and unified or something. Roberts has lost control of his court and is desperately trying to make it appear legitimate.

Genuinely curious:

What does it mean for a Chief Justice to be in control of their court, and of course, for them to be out of control?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#36

Post by torstenvl »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #19
twoodfin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She doesn’t have to convince the “far right wing”. As long as CJ Roberts (not generally regarded as in any “wing”) is in the majority, he can assign the opinion to her.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#37

Post by plagiarist »

js2 wrote: post #10

From https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-rules-that-law-enfo... Additional details: > The information that Google provided to law enforcement officials came in three tranches. First, Google gave law enforcement officials a list of the 19 accounts (but without the names attached to those accounts) linked to devices that were within 150 meters of the bank during the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. Second,…

> [E]ven if there had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials had acted in good faith.

How is this even remotely a possibility?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#38

Post by bombcar »

autoexec wrote: post #30
petcat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess don't bring your phone to a bank robbery. I believe this is similar to how they nabbed the Washington State University murderer. The feds compelled Amazon to give them all the bluetooth MAC addresses that was seen by the Echo device in the home around the time of the murders and were able to correlate it to other devices their suspect's phone had been visible to.

> I guess don't bring your phone to a bank robbery. You should also make sure not to bring your phone to anywhere where a nearby crime is happening because that's all it takes to make you a suspect and force you spend a bunch of money defending yourself. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... Hopefully rulings like this make that scenario a little less likely to happen, but it doesn't stop it…

I mean in this case it would also have helped not to have $100k in cash from a bank robbery laying around.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#39

Post by ceejayoz »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #32
ceejayoz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/amazon-releases-echo-dat...

This article is about audio recordings. There's no mention of Bluetooth nor any mention as to if there were any relevant recordings, which as I understand it are not stored on the device at all. This smells like an urban myth.

I don't think it's implausible that an Echo would have an internal list of trusted Bluetooth devices and their last date of connectivity.
Post reply on HN