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

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#151

Post by twoodfin »

Aerroon wrote: post #125
twoodfin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Rubber-stamping every warrant without regard for Constitutional and other legal standards would not be operating in good faith.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#152

Post by tsimionescu »

petcat wrote: post #74
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)?

> If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place I don't think it's reasonable to have privacy in a public place. All other arguments follow from there. What do you think should be "private" when you step outside your home?

Would you be happy with a public "petcat tracker" site that published your personal location and image 24/7 whenever you are out in public, from data collected from Flock and other similar products? If you think that would cross a line, you do have some expectation of privacy even in a public place.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#153

Post by Terr_ »

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…

Similarly, for the people who don't see the big deal about geo-data, consider that knowing (A) where a phone "goes to work" and (B) where it "sleeps" is usually enough to uniquely identify a person, even when there's a large degree of inaccuracy in the coordinates.

Almost nobody who works near my office lives in my apartment complex, and vice-versa.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#154

Post by rootusrootus »

dmitrygr wrote: post #89
mjburgess wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CJ decides who writes the opinion of the majority if in the majority, and the dissent if in the dissent. Its the job of the CJ to bring sides together in clear oppositions, and "horse trade" between bits and pieces of a decision so that its clear where a majority/minority lie. The CJ's foremost political role is to ensure the judicial branch of government is seen as a politically legitimate institution which wiel…

> They govern by consent of the other branches, and that's trivial to take away That is entirely not at all what the us constitution says

In the case of the legislative branch, the Constitution actually says pretty much exactly that. See Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#155

Post by Terr_ »

tsimionescu wrote: post #152
petcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place I don't think it's reasonable to have privacy in a public place. All other arguments follow from there. What do you think should be "private" when you step outside your home?

Would you be happy with a public "petcat tracker" site that published your personal location and image 24/7 whenever you are out in public, from data collected from Flock and other similar products? If you think that would cross a line, you do have some expectation of privacy even in a public place.

Right: This kind of law is supposed to conform to the common expectation, not dictate it!

We all might expect someone could take a photo of us walking down the sidewalk, but that's not the same as "expecting" to be followed by a virtual (or even literal) drone-swarm that constantly catalogues our every movement cross-referenced to potential interactions with everyone else.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#157

Post by plagiarist »

tsimionescu wrote: post #149
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?

Apparently, the legal understanding is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee some right that illegally obtained evidence can't be used against you (it merely guarantees that those obtaining the evidence illegally will be punished). The reason why evidence obtained illegally is generally suppressed is to act as a deterrent to the Government. Even if individual officers were willing to risk their own punishment f…

That interpretation is insane to me. If all it takes is, "haha, oops," to use evidence gained from an unconstitutional search, people do not actually have Fourth Amendment rights.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, knowing that civil asset forfeiture is a thing.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#158

Post by ecshafer »

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.

The court is legitimate by every measure, regardless it it matches your political views. Starting the contrary is honestly extremism.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#159

Post by JoshTriplett »

dylan604 wrote: post #156
JoshTriplett wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Many jurisdictions already have laws about where you can point cameras "in your own place", including when they point out of your place. For instance, you are already not allowed to point a camera out your window at someone else's home, or into their backyard. You also can't legally record audio in most places. We should have more such restrictions on surveillance as the pervasive use of surveillance has become more of a threat.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#160

Post by jjk166 »

throwway120385 wrote: post #104
pseudo0 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.

For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.

At the same time though, a bunch of people who know each other and the people allegedly involved could very easily share the same incorrect testimony. You wouldn't believe in bigfoot if 5 guys drinking beers swore they saw him while they were camping. Sending someone to prison or worse is much higher stakes. DNA evidence might be too extreme, but I'd expect some sort of evidence to back up a testimony. "What if the witness was wrong" just seems like always a reasonable doubt, or at least the number of witnesses who would need to corroborate something such that it ceases to be a reasonable doubt is impractically high.
Post reply on HN