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

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#71

Post by cbs »

padobson wrote: post #11

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? A right-leaning Supreme court upholds tennants of the 4th Amendment - the go-to civil liberties ammendment - at the same time a Democratic administration seeks to weaken said ammendment. When Democrats are attacking our civil liberties and Republicans (looking at you, Lamar Smith) are removing our economic freedoms, it's time to take the crackpots seriously…

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in?

The same one we've lived in since Marbury v Madison. Judaical review and all that jazz.

The legislature and executive are always trying to grant themselves more power, regardless of party.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#72

Post by kiloaper »

dedward wrote: post #62
kiloaper wrote: post #56

Doesn't matter. As always the government is 2 steps ahead. Drones are already being deployed in the US: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9476623-domesti...

I believe that is unavoidable givenhow things work. Getting something in front of thesupreme court is more difficult than law enforcement moving forward.... so there will akways be a lag between the two.

I understand what you mean however the problem is more fundamental than that. It has become the case in the US and abroad that the higher courts are just enforcing existing laws in face of clear violations. With the blank card that is terrorism, domestic or foreign, branches of the government simply do whatever they want until they are called out on the illegality of it.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#73

Post by rayiner »

padobson wrote: post #11

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? A right-leaning Supreme court upholds tennants of the 4th Amendment - the go-to civil liberties ammendment - at the same time a Democratic administration seeks to weaken said ammendment. When Democrats are attacking our civil liberties and Republicans (looking at you, Lamar Smith) are removing our economic freedoms, it's time to take the crackpots seriously…

While the current court might be right-leaning, it's issued a series of strong civil liberties decisions in the last few years that fit into their "original intent of the framers" model. This case (4th), the video game case (1st), and even Citizen United (1st). They can all be understood in terms of the inquiry: would the Framers have considered this unconstitutional?

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#75

Post by dalke »

iandanforth wrote: post #23
ajkessler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of our most important caselaw is contained in footnotes.

If you could supply a few examples I would love to learn!

While not a footnote, the headnote of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad "indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, as did natural persons" and has been very influential.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#76

Post by kip_ »

bambax wrote: post #61
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

This is a victory -- if you can call a victory taking something back to where it was all along. Along those lines, I noted this in the article: In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our tsk, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government ob…

It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment. In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order…

Such as accessing the phone carrier's records on where a cell phone has been via its internal GPS?

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#77

Post by rayiner »

electic wrote: post #69

This is a victory, sure. But sadly, getting a warrant is a five minute affair nowadays. Judges sign those like water. In fact there are judges that just sign warrants exclusively. That's all they do.

It's an important procedural protection. Just having a coordinate branch of the government somewhere in the process gives you a safeguard against egregious abuse.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#78

Post by rayiner »

tosseraccount wrote: post #54

Does this mean that Facebook, Google and Apple need a warrant to track people? Or just the police?

As a general point, the Bill of Rights isn't an enumeration of rights per se. You don't have the right not to be searched. The Bill of Rights are a limitation of the exercise of federal (and through the 14th amendment, state) power. So no, Facebook could send someone to install a GPS device on your car and it wouldn't violate your 4th amendment rights, since Facebook is not the government. It would, however, probably be a simple trespass for which they could be sued in state court.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#79

Post by _delirium »

jamesgeck0 wrote: post #15
mrdingle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, unfortunately, it wouldn't be considered a search as the data recording would probably be considered voluntary.

There are certain expectations that the customer has about the parties involved and what the voluntarily collected data will be used for. It would be hard to make make a case that warrantless seizure of data fit into the customer's expectations.

Under existing law voluntary disclosure of the customer's data to law enforcement doesn't appear to be illegal, if the company wants to disclose it (as opposed to having its data centers raided, which does require a warrant). At worst it'd be a violation of the privacy policy, if the privacy policy is held to be legally enforceable.

For example, Facebook has been careful to never make an explicit statement to the effect of, "we never share data with law enforcement unless we receive a warrant or subpoena". My guess is that this is because they do share data without asking for a warrant.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#80

Post by bestes »

freehunter wrote: post #30
padobson wrote: post #11

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? A right-leaning Supreme court upholds tennants of the 4th Amendment - the go-to civil liberties ammendment - at the same time a Democratic administration seeks to weaken said ammendment. When Democrats are attacking our civil liberties and Republicans (looking at you, Lamar Smith) are removing our economic freedoms, it's time to take the crackpots seriously…

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? One where the majority of people refuse to see politicians as politicians. There is no Democrat vs Republican.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly; could you please expand a bit?
Post reply on HN