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

171–180 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#171

Post by sixothree »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #96
TheJoeMan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I run into someone at the grocery store, I can remember "oh I saw them yesterday" if the Police interview me. If I start writing down/logging every time I saw that person at the grocery store and plotting it out, I would consider that "crossing the line". A Flock camera that receives BOLO's for known-criminals and immediately flags captures in real-time is different than tracking every person going everywhere with…

What if the grocery store has a security camera pointed at the door that records 24/7? Should they not be allowed to do that?

Try walking around a grocery store with your phone and take a picture of every person you pass. See how they react.

That's the expectation people have for privacy.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#172

Post by qingcharles »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #81
bee_rider wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I had a judge once tell me that the police absolutely have the right to commit crimes to gather evidence in an investigation.

(mostly true -- for instance an officer can generally commit innumerable felonies as long as nothing they do violates your personal constitutional rights -- rarely is evidence thrown out because it was obtained in violation of a statute unless that statute includes a provision for exclusion, e.g. wiretapping laws)

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#173

Post by jjk166 »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #168
jjk166 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Damn its almost as if juries exist to act as the sovereign so the violence which sustains the law can be vested in a general public that cannot be held accountable as a whole, similarly to how at least one member of a firing squad always has a blank.

Or perhaps the standards of evidence established for a pre-industrial society when eye-witness testimony was the best that could reasonably be achieved is not necessarily the optimal system for a digital society where everyone carries a high definition video camera in their pocket at all times.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#174

Post by seplox »

anigbrowl wrote: post #163
seplox wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Amendmen…

I suspect the argument against that would be that you contract with the cell service provider and so have a colorable interest as a party to said contract. In contrast you have no such contractual relationship with Flock, and if your government contracted with them on your behalf your remedy is to vote harder.

According to the ruling, the exposure of your location history is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage—which, just as Carpenter noted, is a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."

If we can't step out of our houses or drive to the doctor without that fact getting placed into a searchable database, then I'd argue that it qualifies as a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#175

Post by matheusmoreira »

Terr_ wrote: post #153
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.

The sheer tradecraft necessary for privacy and anonymity these days is so absurd. One would need to do things like somehow buying burner phones untraceably, removing the battery when not in use and only ever turning them on in a specific location that's completely unlinked from one's normal everyday activity, and only use the phone for one specific purpose in order to prevent identity cross contamination. The depths of compartmentalization necessary for this stuff almost seems to require that the person develop a split personality.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#177

Post by throw0101d »

IMHO a more important ruling "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power":

> More broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers.

* https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir...

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48724538

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

AIUI, independent agencies created by Congress are no longer independent.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#178

Post by sixothree »

ecshafer wrote: post #158
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's extreme to expect them disclose "donations"?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#179

Post by qingcharles »

plagiarist wrote: post #157
tsimionescu wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is mostly true.

You have to remember that evidence exclusion for a constitutional violation is a modern thing, and it is what's known as "judge made," e.g. it wasn't made by legislature, it was invented by the courts. (Miranda warnings are the same -- I remember one time-travel book I was reading where the guy went back to 19th century New York and was complaining about the police beating him and not reading him his rights)

So sometimes it can be kinda hand-wavy and bullshit, especially using the "good faith" exception which has been very over-used in the last decade or so, especially because of new technologies, which gives a get-out clause to the police unless the exact fact pattern of their "search" exactly matched some previous case that was solidified in appellate case law in their state or federal district, or by SCOTUS.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#180

Post by LgWoodenBadger »

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,…

“Had acted in good faith”

Seems like there’s no point in having the constitution if a violation of it has no effect.

Post reply on HN