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

121–130 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#121

Post by preg_match »

dylan604 wrote: post #115
tencentshill wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fantastic. One step closer to making holding personal data a liability.

How do you jump to that conclusion? theGoog decided they didn't want to deal with it because it was a hassle not because it was a liability issue. Congress critters would need to get together to make data hoarding a liability and I just don't see that ever happening

A hassle is a liability. Not, like, a legal liability but definitely a financial one.

The more we make it inconvenient and expensive for companies to hoard this data, the more they will learn it’s not worth it. A lot of the time data is collected “just in case” or for features nobody uses. Companies will learn the hard way that this is a liability to their bottom line and operations, and give it up.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#122

Post by ocdtrekkie »

dmitrygr wrote: post #100
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the Constitution has to actually be followed for it to work. The Supreme Court has no military or police, if the President chooses to disobey them and the military and police follow the President's orders... there isn't much the Court can do about it. The system works when everyone executes the system faithfully, but that isn't meaningfully happening right now.

> The system works when everyone executes the system faithfully, but that isn't meaningfully happening You are entirely right, we really need to prosecute presidents who do not follow SCOTUS rulings, like [1] and [2] [1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/joe-biden-student-debt-forgivene... [2] https://www.cato.org/blog/obama-administration-ignores-supre...

I mean, this is the textbook definition of whataboutism. =)

But I am indeed of the inclination that we should demand the rule of law from Presidents of all parties. Generally speaking, I am in favor of a significant downsizing of the authority of the President as a whole. They have far too many powers and are granted too much leniency to use them "in case of emergency" which has increasingly just turned into every President declaring everything they want to do an emergency. Presidents should be subject to prosecution for misconduct, and upheld to the highest standards of the law, and we should have systems in place to swiftly and effectively remove them if they do not meet them. The bar for impeachment and removal is too high when it is unattainable in a two-party system where the President controls one of those parties.

Our country does not need kings of any party.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#123

Post by seplox »

derektank wrote: post #83
arlattimore wrote: post #70

If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place, does this mean that products like Flock which indiscriminately violate your privacy would now require a warrant for law enforcement to access (currently they do not)?

Where does the ruling discuss public places? The article quotes the ruling as saying, “An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location.” I don’t think a ruling about private records held by a private entity like google or a phone company naturally extends to surveillance of public places.

> I don’t think a ruling about private records held by a private entity like google or a phone company naturally extends to surveillance of public places.

Even when the surveillance is being conducted by a private entity? A private entity that's selling access to its private records of the comings and goings of a sizeable chunk of the population to police who are buying specifically because it would be a 4th Amendment violation for them to collect the data themselves?

If it's reasonable for we consumers, who know that cell networks and phone makers are collecting our data, to expect privacy, then it's reasonable to extend that same expectation to operators of ALPR and related techs. There's no opt-out, after all. We can't reject the terms of service.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#124

Post by Cider9986 »

awkwardpotato wrote: post #55
Cider9986 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a 94% chance the EO is struck down on polymarket.

And what are the odds in Vegas? How is the opinion of a bunch of gamblers on polymarket relevant?

People are maximally incentivized to be right because of the monetary risk and reward.

A 94% odds indicates an extremely high likelihood that something is going to happen. It's relevant because it's a different, additional perspective than whatever a news article says.

It's a 2500℅ ROI if it's not struck down, so I would encourage you to bet if you think the outcome will be no.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#125

Post by Aerroon »

twoodfin wrote: post #97
plagiarist wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In retrospect, the part I quoted is very unclear for what I intended. I should have added more. What's hard to believe is the data is apparently still allowed in the case. Like... how?

Because the police got a warrant, exactly as this decision now says was required. And there's something called the "good-faith exception" for unreasonable warrants: If you get a warrant where it's required (or in this case, where the government tried to argue it wasn't!), and a magistrate grants that warrant, it's a legal warrant so long as all participants were acting in good faith, believing their actions to be leg…

So, all you need is a magistrate that rubber stamps every warrant and it removes all protections from search and seizure from anyone?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#126

Post by JoshTriplett »

dylan604 wrote: post #117
JoshTriplett wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they should be allowed to point it at places inside their store , with prominent disclosure to people entering. I don't think they should be allowed to point it at the public sidewalk.

So what if they mount inside pointing outside?

Was "I don't think they should be allowed to" ambiguous?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#127

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

catapart wrote: post #18
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #11

Birthright citizenship decision coming tomorrow.

Yep. And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues. Feels like there's about to be some pure bullshit spewing from the right flank of this illegitimate court. I'd dearly love to be wrong about this, but I'm not holding out hope. Until alito and thomas are impeached for unconstit…

I think it'll be upheld.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#128

Post by trogdor »

tantalor wrote: post #73
alexpotato wrote: post #52

I always like to mention how Paula Broadwell was identified as David Petraeus' mistress as it's a good example of how even without a phone you can still be identified. - FBI had three distinct IPs linked to emails - They geolocated those back to 3 different hotels - They pulled the guest list from each of the hotels - Did a "join" on them and the only guest at all 3 was Broadwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_B…

It's also a good demonstration how probable cause is supposed to work. In this case, the subpoena probably looked something like "this email must have been sent by one of your guests, so give us the guest list and we'll cross check and find the guy". Contrast with the geofence subpoena. "Hey maybe some small % of people carry a phone that might send its location to you, can we check if they did?" It's ludicrous.

In this case it was a warrant, and the Supreme Court’s ruling does not hold that the warrant violated the fourth amendment.

Edit: looks like I misunderstood what you were referring to by “this case”

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#129

Post by mothballed »

ceejayoz wrote: post #113
dmitrygr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the opinion? SCOTUS only said a process was broken by a step being missed. Trump can still fire Cook, just has to let Cook have a hearing about it. Nowhere that I see did they say Trump must at all consider what Cook says at said hearing or be bound by it in any way - only that she must be able to get a hearing. This does not seem to contradict his authority to fire her. Just like your job's HR will glad…

Yes, I read both opinions, and am left wondering why "out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference" applied to one and not the other.

SCOTUS ruled if something is in the executive branch, POTUS can fire the commissioner. Congress and everyone else explicitly is saying the FTC is in the executive branch, which puts it in a completely different question that regarding the federal reserve.

The ruling in Slaughter was not that president can fire commissioners no matter what branch they are in. It was never established in Trump v Cook that the federal reserve lies in the executive branch.

Your attempt here to falsely portray an inconsistency that doesn't exist. It's a different question as to whether the federal reserve is in the executive branch. You'll have to show the federal reserve is in the executive branch if you want the same ruling to apply or claim this inconsistency.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#130

Post by harimau777 »

dylan604 wrote: post #111
sidewndr46 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge doesn't care if the law was violated in collecting evidence.

Maybe this particular judge didn't for whatever reasoning, but judges definitely prevent a prosecutor from introducing evidence based on how it was collected. This is why concepts like "fruit of poisonous tree" and "parallel construction" exist.

Doesn't parallel construcction mean that judges actually don't care how evidence was collected? They can't possibly care that much if they are fine with a fig leaf like parallel construction.
Post reply on HN