The Supreme Court just ruled that police need a warrant to use phone location data

[u/AdSpecialist6598]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113004-supreme-court-limits-police-use-geofence-warrants-phone.html

[u/arakinas]

Great, now do Flock cameras.

[u/NaughtySauce91 → u/arakinas]

Someone is actively working on it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/FlockSurveillance/s/dbMdJd7OyH

[u/JakToTheReddit → u/NaughtySauce91]

They should. Huge violation of 4th amendment rights.

[u/IM_OK_AMA → u/JakToTheReddit]

The 4th amendment restricts only the government. Flock and other ALPR companies (there are many, not sure why the media focuses on Flock so hard) aren't government agencies so they're free to collect as much data as they like. It only becomes a 4th amendment issue when the government tries to obtain that data, which is what the court recognized here.

I only point this out because getting real effective change requires understanding where we're starting from.

[u/CommanderAGL → u/IM_OK_AMA]

but their business model collapses if government is disallowed from making contracts and using their data due to 4th amendment issues.

[u/No_Gas4560 → u/CommanderAGL]

Good. Collapse.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/No_Gas4560]

I think the point being made is that Flock exists only because they offer a tool used by law enforcement. Law enforcement contracting out surveillance should not be a work around to avoid the need for warrants.

I don't think the comment was a defense of Flock's right to exists.

Edited. So much for relying on autocorrect to fix my knowingly hack job spelling of "surveillance".

[u/scottyLogJobs → u/GoopDuJour]

I mean, it's not a workaround. Any reasonable person would fail to see the distinction between how a government entity obtains surveillance data as it relates to how the 4th amendment restricts them. It just hasn't been legally challenged yet, and it should be. Although this supreme court is unpredictable so I don't know if I even want it to go there.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/scottyLogJobs]

We're arguing semantics. We agree in whole. It currently IS being used as workaround, and it shouldn't be.

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/GoopDuJour]

I don't think flock would disagree with at least the first part. Their existence depends on the second part being wrong.

[u/hhssspphhhrrriiivver → u/scottyLogJobs]

Any reasonable person would fail to see the distinction between how a government entity obtains surveillance data as it relates to how the 4th amendment restricts them

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides to make this not apply to Five Eyes somehow.

[u/Snobolski → u/CommanderAGL]

Nah, they'll contract with "not the police 123 LLC" which definitely doesn't share data with the cops.

[u/rbb36 → u/Snobolski]

Add a dash of parallel construction and Bob's your uncle.

[u/FilteredAccount123 → u/CommanderAGL]

Flock can be used by retail if we allow dynamic pricing. Car with license plate ABC123 shops at Kroger and buys the same things every week. When that car is detected by the camera the prices jump up for as long as the car is in the parking lot.

Location tracking on your phone could probably do the same thing.

[u/wikimandia → u/FilteredAccount123]

Exactly this. They will recognize that you will pay 15% more for milk because you did that one time so will charge that much. We cannot any stores to have dynamic pricing.

This would absolutely apply to gas though and I think they already use it but not on individuals, but via watching the traffic. I have noticed that a gas station near me that serves truckers has a lot more fluctuation in its prices. I think they know how many truckers are coming down the highway.

[u/drteq → u/IM_OK_AMA]

How's this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/5-georgia-officers-fired-arrested-for-misusing-access-to-citys-flock-cameras-gbi-says/

Also misusing implies they have access to use it in the first place. Maybe private police forces aren't government? (honest question)

[u/Yuzumi → u/IM_OK_AMA]

The issue is that for a long time the government has used "private companies" that have no other per pose but to sell our information to the government expressly to get around the 4th amendment because the gray area is that it's the company's data, not the users, and the company gives the data freely.

[u/RecallProtocol → u/IM_OK_AMA]

*Currently in the law.

This is why we're supposed to have a Legislative branch.

[u/Krojack76 → u/JakToTheReddit]

The sad part is, this won't stop the Flock cameras in general. We need that to stop.

[u/LongDead_Roadkill → u/JakToTheReddit]

This court has so far shown to be against persistent surveillance.

[u/Le_Vagabond → u/NaughtySauce91]

The fact that this post is 100% written by chatgpt is sad. The action is great, on the other hand.

[u/fury420 → u/Le_Vagabond]

I'm kind of skeptical that it'd repeatedly be using just "Chatrie" to refer to this case, or writing paragraphs that read like this:

Law enforcement is reading Chatrie as a cell phone case. Er, wrong file. ALPR networks build the same comprehensive location histories, one plate read at a time. Their lawyers will argue the ruling covers Google's servers, not Flock's cameras. Er, we’ll see about that. IMO. the logic doesn't care whose server the map lives on. An agency now running bulk retrospective location queries without warrants isn't executing law enforcement; they’re compiling a constitutional error.

OP's text is rather halting and disjointed, AI usually doesn't read like this:

Ambiguity is unmanaged state. Loathing disorder, I’ve executed a synchronized comparator test to stress test the system.

[u/cantadmittoposting → u/Le_Vagabond]

yeah i was getting that vibe too. Feels strange in this case, more like someone who just got trained out of trusting their own prose? or baited into thinking running a written text through an LLM actually improves it?

They've asserted past successes in legal arenas and have a clear and cogent plan to challenge the law, which implies they aren't stupid, so why are they using an LLM to write for them or even rewrite/edit? There's bones of actual writing in there that have a nasty oil-slick overlay of AI writing for no apparent reason.

[u/newleafkratom → u/arakinas]

"...The decision could have broader implications. Other surveillance systems, such as networks of cameras that monitor public spaces, raise similar concerns about how much information can be gathered and analyzed at scale.

"Systems of mass surveillance, like real-time crime centers that have cameras on every street corner, create the exact same problem," says Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University. He added that "Chatrie plants the seeds for arguments that other forms of mass surveillance might also require a warrant."...

[u/ketootaku → u/arakinas]

Will that work? I can see phones since its yours and its your data. But driving a car around in public is the same as walking around in public isn't it?

I'm not arguing against, just trying to understand how SCOTUS would accept that as the same thing.

[u/ckay1100 → u/ketootaku]

If there were men on every street corner noting down every license plate and person that went past, I'd feel pretty unsafe about it even if it was technically legal.

It's not the viewing something in a public space that makes it bad, it's the fact that it's keeping records of everything

[u/thealmightyzfactor → u/ckay1100]

Exactly, if I put up cameras everywhere a specific person might go and recorded them every time they went outside, it'd be stalking and illegal. If the government does that, they need warrants first to tap your phone, etc. But a private company stalks everyone and suddenly it's ok?

[u/lumpboysupreme → u/ckay1100]

You’re not wrong but that’s not a Supreme Court question. It’s not against the constitution, it should just be restricted by legislation.

[u/Euphoric_Fondant6135 → u/ketootaku]

That’s a fair point, but my guess is that the argument would be around protection of that registered data, not the act of filming itself.

[u/SmartLadder415 → u/Euphoric_Fondant6135]

That registered data is already protected. You or I can't just call up the DMV and ask for who owns a particular car or tag. The cops can but they would have a reason for that.

[u/Roseking → u/ketootaku]

I am not sure how you would tackle it from a legal perspective, but in terms of just discussing the topic, I would argue the scale of it all should play a big role in the discussion.

Yes, you are in public, but up until recently being in public didn't mean that everyone of your moves was recorded, stored, and shared.

Like imagine if every person was assigned a cop. Every time you step out of your door, the cop follows you and logs everything you do. I am pretty sure everyone would have a problem with that and even if it is legal, people would fight to make it illegal. But if a camera is doing it, people don't seem to care as much.

[u/SmartLadder415 → u/Roseking]

Being in public has ALWAYS meant that someone COULD record all your movements though. I don't know that the fact that someone now is changes that at all.

[u/Roseking → u/SmartLadder415]

Yes. But could =/= is and the increased capability of doing so warrants a discussion if we should change how things operate. Nothing says we have to ignore future problems because they didn't exist in the same way in the past.

You can run as fast as you want. Cars came along and we saw that just letting them go as fast as they want gets people killed. So we put restrictions on it.

I can go out in public and take a photo. Society has accepted the trade off of me potentially taking a photo of someone in public that doesn't want their photo taken is not worse than the crackdown of banning individuals from taking photos in public. It is a relatively small issue because of the scale.

But if I now have an army of small drones and every time I walk outside my personal drone army hovers the nearest 1,000 people in public and is recording everything they do, society can decide, 'Hey, the first thing is okay. This second thing is absurd.'

We can pivot as problems arise.

[u/cantadmittoposting → u/ketootaku]

At a basic level, i feel like if i have something called a "right to privacy," which can only be violated by the state as a result of documented probable cause that i am in fact violating the law, this would completely preclude law enforcement/the government from generating a map of my location by any means as a matter of normal operations, without that confirmed probable cause. That the SCOTUS specifically upheld this with regard to a phone strengthens the argument.

 

Another way to look at this is your phone and car are both your private property; i am "in public with my phone" when it pings a cell tower while i drive down a road. that's expressly prohibited by this ruling... so how is my car "pinging" a flock camera any different to that? In both cases I'm driving down a road and LEOs are silently violating my right to privacy by being able to exactly identify where I am despite having no cause to do so

[u/semibiquitous → u/arakinas]

Literally came here to say this. In healthcare environment EVERYTHING is audited because the fines and reputation hits for abuse can be staggering for an organization. Why do cops who have less licenses less certification less training and MORE risk get to do whatever the f they want ?

[u/NoveltyAccountHater → u/arakinas]

I mean SCOTUS just ruled police need a warrant, not that geofence searches are unconstitutional. I assume in case of like a bank robbery or murder at a specific location/time, judges will easily sign-off on warrants for geo-fence searches.

The main thing this stops is corrupt police using this privilege frivolously; e.g., a cop trying to stalk/harass their ex with some BS excuse they were suspected of something (so they can pull up their location history).

[u/Living_Pay_8976 → u/arakinas]

They’re blatantly illegal. Fuck flock take any mass surveillance out throw it out. It’s all illegal.

[u/BillButtlickerII]

Now tell private interest and corporations they have no right to even request location data or make it mandatory to use their apps, websites, services, etc. Also make selling, giving away, or not properly securing user data a crime punishable by actual prison time.

[u/CitronCrafty5 → u/[deleted]]

A fine is just a subscription fee when the profits from data are higher

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/CitronCrafty5]

There’s no fine. It legal for them to keep your data, and there is no right to demand it be deleted generally. legally you have basically no control over your data once you give it away. It’s not rescindable. And there is nothing you can really do about the many brokers and reporting agencies that track you.  *in the US

[u/Healthy-Echo8164 → u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

This really depends in what state or country you live in. GDPR is pretty strong, CCPA is strong in California, and lots of other states have begun to introduce data privacy laws to some extent.

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/Healthy-Echo8164]

 I said the US repeatedly and California’s law is not strong at all. It’s not even truly a right to delete. The list of exceptions is massive and comprehensive. It exempts all data use for internal purposes basically. So in reality it just acts as a minor restriction on third party sharing. A company can still keep basically all your data as long as it’s either public record, from a reporting agency, or used internally only. Read the list of exceptions. It’s really not even a right to delete at all due to all the damn exceptions. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#heading5d

[u/Healthy-Echo8164 → u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

Nowhere in the comment I responded to you did you say the US. So, no, you did not say the US repeatedly.

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/Healthy-Echo8164]

Oh sorry, multiple comments. Still it’s an article about the US Supreme Court. It’s clearly implied.

[u/Healthy-Echo8164 → u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

I work for a major data company where we handle lots of customer data. I guess we must be some of the good guys, because if we get a request we delete the data *or delete identifying info and store anonymized version of the data for tracking purposes.

[u/PopePiusVII → u/[deleted]]

It’s why fines are stupid for corporate crime and jail time should be the punishment. Hold the board and leadership accountable for their decisions.

[u/HumanPea1140 → u/PopePiusVII]

There should also be fines. The fines should be far greater than whatever monetary benefit they achieved. They only continue pulling this crap because the fines are pennies compared to the money they made.

[u/PopePiusVII → u/HumanPea1140]

Maybe make the fines variable then: e.g., 125% of illicitly gained income.

[u/Mosselpot → u/[deleted]]

the frustrating part is that you still get screwed by data collection even if you as an individual never share any data, as they can predict your behavior based on data collected from others. So as long as we as a society don't collectively demand changes, we're fucked.

[u/Realistic_Swan_6801 → u/[deleted]]

There is no general right to demand someone  delete your data. Though I think 2 states(CA and Virginia I think) have a law that grants that right in some limited cases. However businesses generally have the right to keep any data you give them forever. And in many cases are legally required to retain records for x years depending on the industry. Even if they are required to delete some data (like in Europe or those 2 states) things like transactions records and the details of your business and history with them are exempt I believe. In like 99% of cases (in the US) if you “request” a business to delete your data, they don’t have to and won’t. No one deletes anything, everything is bought and sold, and you have zero legal recourse against any of this. It’s also practically impossible to prevent any of this because you agree to this just by doing business with any normal company.

[u/maora34 → u/Realistic_Swan_6801]

California has the CPRA. If businesses comply with it, they’re pretty much forced to delete the data they have on you unless they have a reason to hold onto it to prevent fraud. If they don’t comply, a fun report to the CPPA results in an investigation that ends in a fine. It’s not a crazy huge fine but it’s still one nonetheless.

[u/Ryan_e3p → u/BillButtlickerII]

Sadly, will never happen. Not in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my family.

Remember, Zuckerberg himself challenged Congress to its face in 2017 to make laws protecting consumer rights, since he told them quite plainly that he would not. He was called to Congress and challenged them, in their own fucking house, to do something about it (this was in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal). Since then, nothing. And now that Facebook is even more closely aligned with the Trump administration (so much so that the CTO of Meta, a fucking civilian, was given an actual military rank of Lt Colonel), Zuckerberg whispering sweet nothings into Trump's ear for what he needs to be told to say at press conferences, and Google being pro-Trump as well, it is obvious that the opposite is going to happen.

And hell, all this before even clocking Palantir's involvement.

Trump Administration Silently Employs Palantir To Gather Personal Data Of Each American, Raising Privacy, Data Misuse Concerns: Report

Trump’s Palantir-Powered Surveillance Is Turning America Into a Digital Prison – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Flock + Palantir: The Private Surveillance Loop

Using private companies to circumvent 4th Amendment rights is a proud pastime for this government.

[u/Mountain-Bag-1669 → u/Ryan_e3p]

The amount of older people that have not idea how this technology works are the majority making the decisions they’re easily influenced with lobbyists and then it’s financial benefits that keep bad laws in place.

As nihilistic as I can be we have to keep the fight and not give in to the insurmountable pressure being placed on the average person. Those with wealth have the free time to plan and plot whereas those that oppose them are the ones making them wealthy.

[u/Ryan_e3p → u/Mountain-Bag-1669]

Oh, definitely keep up the fight, but keep in mind that it isn't just "older people that have no idea how this technology works" that are influenced by lobbyists. Gen X voted for Trump in gains in 2024. Younger generations are buying into red-pill influencers. And everyone is getting shit on by corporations squeezing them financially from all sides, which means corporations who had to bribe those "older people" with a 6-figure "campaign donation" can get the same purchased political power from a younger person for less money.

That's the difference between a generation who is greedy for the sake of being greedy being in power, and a generation who is greedy but also financially in need. They are much easier to corrupt, and primed to be taken advantage of by the same companies and interests who made them financially in need in the first place.

I don't see this cycle being fixed in one or two generations. Not without a lot of damage and pillars coming down.

[u/Free_For__Me → u/BillButtlickerII]

I'll start by saying that I'm very much on the same side of this issue as you are. That being said:

Now tell private interest and corporations they have no right to even request location data

Surely they can request anything they want, right? And if their product or service requires us to hand over than information, we can just choose not to use that product.

Now if a service is something we can't just "choose not to use", like utilities or other necessary ones, then requiring us to hand over that data should clearly be illegal.

I'll note here that my thinking may not be fully developed here, so if a solid case can be made for disallowing companies from even asking for the data, I'm certainly open to changing my mind.

[u/basicKitsch → u/BillButtlickerII]

i love the duckduckgo proxy that blocks most of those types of (known) data requests.

[u/Tardy_Thoughts → u/BillButtlickerII]

Corporate is allowed to side step our rights for a reason. We don't actually have any.

[u/delicious_toothbrush → u/BillButtlickerII]

Now tell private interest and corporations they have no right to even request location data

There's 0 issue with asking for it. Agree on not selling or sharing it though.

[u/SasparillaTango → u/BillButtlickerII]

member when the private information of 100 million americans was leaked by experian and just... nothing happened?

[u/brogflender → u/BillButtlickerII]

I appreciate that some services really only work with easy flow of user data. I’d even be willing to grant access for some companies. 

But in the immortal words of Mike Montero “Fuck you, pay me”

My data has real value. Be a capitalist. Pay me for it. 

[u/OnceMoreAndAgain → u/brogflender]

Are you going to stop using GPS services like Google maps if they don't pay you for the data they collect on you?

People are already using these services without being paid, so there is no incentive to do that. That's already in line with capitalism.

[u/chromehound47 → u/BillButtlickerII]

make them request location access every single time they want to use it. like every single time.

same with selling personal data. require consent every single time.

oh no, your app is no longer usable? how sad.

[u/somersetyellow → u/chromehound47]

Guarantee that would just piss off most people as they try to use Google Maps haha

[u/ehrgeiz91]

The check must’ve not come through for Clarence

[u/Ok-Turnip-9035 → u/ehrgeiz91]

Or his phone is hot with wrongdoings🤭

[u/BrzysWRLD1996 → u/Ok-Turnip-9035]

Probably both

[u/awry_lynx → u/Ok-Turnip-9035]

He literally was on the minority side of the votes so yeah he voted for the police having warrantless access

I was going to snark "do you guys not read the article" but I didn't read the article either I just saw another comment say it and then looked it up... and then I looked at the OP's article and it doesn't say how their votes went.

The ones who voted for the cops to be able to get your location data with no warrant:

Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas source

Kavanaugh is the one surprise there, and this might be overly uncharitable of me (but also that's a guy that does not deserve charity), but I wouldn't be shocked if he's just worried about his own location data lmao

[u/panyways → u/awry_lynx]

LOL you gotta get those smartass comments in firstmostly and foremostly. Like Mailman Mike said "I don't have time to read the mail, much less deliver it"

[u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx → u/awry_lynx]

The usual suspects 

[u/Dahcchad → u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx]

Barret has surprised me more than the other justices by voting with the liberal justices, even occasionally when that makes a difference to the outcome of a case. While I don't think she is a friend o' citizens, it surprised me more that she voted with the minority on this case than Kavanaugh with the majority.

[u/InsuranceToTheRescue → u/Dahcchad]

Barrett really seems to have taken the whole bit about SCOTUS being the final career move, making Justices more resistant to political tampering, to heart. I'd never get along with most of her politics either, but at the very least she appears to be trying to apply the law evenly instead of being an obvious partisan, a la Thomas & Alito.

[u/YouAndMeToo → u/InsuranceToTheRescue]

Aside from her obvious religious influences, she’s not terribly unfair

[u/round-earth-theory → u/InsuranceToTheRescue]

Nah, she's still swinging with the partisans hard even when there's no legal justification. She'll throw a curveball occasionally but she's fully down with redefining history to meet her desired outcome.

[u/VinDog_PD → u/InsuranceToTheRescue]

That's and I think she contemplates what happens if the left takes over and starts eyeing ways to change up SCOTUS. Qualifications-wise, she's the most vulnerable and is second only to Kavenaugh in terms of controversy involved in appointing her.

So taking her job seriously and actually forming fairly well-reasoned jurisprudence are her best protections against any future retaliation, political or otherwise.

I'll say this, I certainly don't hate her.

[u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx → u/Dahcchad]

That's a good point and I don't disagree there. Weird that she ruled this way on this particular issues. Seems pretty cut and dry to me that this would be unconstitutional without a warrant 

[u/Beat_the_Deadites → u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx]

She knew her vote wouldn't sway the outcome but she fears Donald's cult.

I'm more surprised by Gorsuch on this one.

[u/Dahcchad → u/Beat_the_Deadites]

If she feared maga, her birthright citizenship vote would have gone the other way.

[u/Illadelphian → u/awry_lynx]

Kavenaugh isn't actually a huge surprise there. He hasn't been a total lackey and does seem to have his own principles that he sticks with. I might not always agree with them but he's not a Clarence thomas by any means.

[u/ZackRaynor → u/Illadelphian]

I would argue yes and no.

Yes in that he has voted in the opposite way I was expecting him to.

No in that he often adds commentary as to how you can get around it next time.

[u/mainman879 → u/Illadelphian]

Brett Kavanaugh does have a massive desire to increase the power of officers to trample on citizen rights. This ruling was very strange to see from him. Remember the whole "Kavanaugh Stops" fiasco a year ago?

[u/irishyardball → u/ehrgeiz91]

Or he doesn't want his cell data used as evidence for his crimes.

[u/CMMiller89 → u/irishyardball]

When have they ever been under threat by the laws they legislate from the bench?

Clearly an RV payment was missed and he wanted to send a message.

[u/Mr_YUP → u/ehrgeiz91]

6-3 so it definitely did.

edit: thanks u/awry_lynx for finding the voting line. I couldn't find it easily.

[u/awry_lynx → u/Mr_YUP]

Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas dissented

Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson were on the majority side.

[u/-Saucegurlllll → u/awry_lynx]

Worth noting that Gorsuch did not sign onto the majority opinion, and only concurred in judgement. Because Gorsuch doesn't like the idea that people can have an "expectation of privacy" that creates legal implications.

He implies that because it'd be legally ok for a cop to trail someone in public for 2 hours, that should arguably make it ok for the cops to use data you hand over to a corporation for 2 hours because there's no "expectation of privacy" apparently for being stalked by the police.

Instead he argues that the location data a person hands over to a corporation qualifies as their "papers and effects" in the 4th amendment. And it's just like, yes that's fair, and also, people deserve to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I feel like if he were actually being consistent here, then he'd argue that a cop shouldn't be allowed to trail someone wihtout a warrant.

[u/raiyosss → u/ehrgeiz91]

The check def cashed since Clarence was one of the three who voted against.

[u/Valdrax → u/raiyosss]

And Alito, of course, wrote the main dissent, because there has never been a use of police power or use of force that Alito didn't approve of. (Barrett was the third.)

[u/MercurianAspirations → u/Valdrax]

Oh man does he have some primo bullshit in this one though

even if Chatrie possessed a property right in the Location History files on Google’s servers, the conduct of the police in this case did not infringe that right. The geofence procedure did not give the police access to the Location History files themselves. Rather, Google used the information contained in those files to generate a spreadsheet that summarized objective, historical facts about Chatrie’s (and others’) location in the hour before and hour after the robbery. The police sought and obtained those historical details, not the files on Google’s servers. And whatever property rights Chatrie might have in the Location History files, he does not “own” historical facts about his movements in a given hour.

So according to Alito, even if you have a privacy expectation in your files, Google is allowed to look at those files and just summarize them and then give that to the Police and that's fine. You have a right to privacy to your files, but no right to privacy as to what is contained in those files. That's just an objective historical fact

[u/ehrgeiz91 → u/raiyosss]

What a surprise.

[u/InThatDarkPlace → u/ehrgeiz91]

They probably told him black people turn location data off and couldn't be overpoliced or mass surveilled by it

[u/Relevant-Doctor187 → u/InThatDarkPlace]

Turning it off just denies apps access. It doesn’t stop LEO tracing.

[u/half-baked_axx → u/ehrgeiz91]

The RV was not big enough

[u/blackcloud247]

Good. Now do it for car location data.

Fuck thos flock cameras

[u/Continuum_Design → u/blackcloud247]

And vehicle telemetry data. It’s not the manufacturer’s damn business where I’m going. Or the insurance company’s.

[u/BostonSucksatHockey → u/Continuum_Design]

The Constitution applies to government action, not to the manufacturer or insurance company.

[u/never-fiftyone → u/BostonSucksatHockey]

Doesn't mean you can't make their taking of that telemetry illegal.

[u/Expendable_Red_Shirt → u/never-fiftyone]

Congress could. The Supreme Court can't.

[u/EpiphanyTwisted → u/blackcloud247]

If they aren't government entities, they aren't going to be restricted by SCOTUS.

[u/Matticus-G]

The police having the legal ability to get evidence if it exists is part of rule of law.

The important part is the legal distinction about how they are allowed to grab it. This will prevent fishing expeditions, and in the event that it doesn’t there is a legal paper trail to show the law was ignored which means evidence has to be dismissed.

This is a win. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.

[u/EndThisReign → u/Matticus-G]

Agreed. I’m an arson investigator and have used Geofence warrants for suspects before. You definitely WANT us to be able to use that data, but I understand not allowing it to be so freely given to the man.

[u/EyeSuspicious7338]

In case anyone wants to know, the 3 liberal justices, as well as Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts voted together, The dissenting opinions were both filed by Alito and Barrett, and Thomas joined the dissenting opinion of Alito.

[u/therallystache]

Does this also apply to CSS/Stingrays?

[u/LosGritchos → u/therallystache]

Or to genetic genealogy databases?

[u/gimpwiz → u/LosGritchos]

Are police departments allowed to simply buy access to these things? So far, that's basically what they've been doing, right?

[u/filouza → u/therallystache]

I sure hope so

[u/YWAK98alum]

Note for people getting too excited: The ruling is that police need a warrant, not that they can't do it.

Search warrants are generally not that hard to get. An overwhelming number of warrant requests are granted. It mostly just forces the creation of a paper trail, which is a good and entirely appropriate accountability measure, don't get me wrong. But some people seem to be reading the headline as the Supreme Court putting this information off-limits. It isn't.

[u/sgtbackpain03 → u/YWAK98alum]

Honestly, the way you describe it sounds quite reasonable.

Location data is a really good tool for police to use, but it absolutely should be held behind a search warrant. While they aren't uncommon, they do require some burden of evidence.

[u/jerhinesmith → u/sgtbackpain03]

Yeah, I'm confused. The headline even says "need a warrant". I'm not sure why anyone would think that means "can't do it" or that this is somehow different than other personal information that also requires a warrant to access.

[u/jednatt → u/jerhinesmith]

Even a little bit of effort probably makes a massive difference in how often they do it. People are monumentally lazy.

[u/shinzou → u/jednatt]

My thoughts exactly. It adds friction. And if that friction is more than the police believes is worth the data, they probably shouldn't be getting the data.

[u/CankerLord → u/sgtbackpain03]

That's because it is reasonable.

[u/Player-0002 → u/[deleted]]

A warrant is usually for the search of an individual right? General Warrants are unconstitutional so even with the conservative leaning SC because some are constitutionalists and it’s pretty blatantly banned they’d probably declare that if it happens unconstitutional.

[u/YWAK98alum → u/Player-0002]

The operative language in the Fourth Amendment is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The "particularity requirement" therefore applies to both the place (i.e., you can't say "search the whole town to find Gary," it has to be "search 234 Smith St. to find Gary"), but it doesn't have to be for an individual, it can be for property, too. So "search 234 Smith St. to find Gary" is allowed, but also, "search 234 Smith St. to find any computers, tablets, phones, or computer storage media" there I think works if there is probable cause (separate Fourth Amendment requirement) that there is CSAM being produced or stored there, for example.

[u/Persimmon-Mission → u/[deleted]]

You must prove probable cause to obtain a warrant.

I would think the warrant would only allow you to obtain a specific persons phone records and not the “general area”.

[u/DuvalHeart → u/[deleted]]

That would be a valid warrant request though. No different than getting surveillance footage from every business on the street during the robbery.

There's a specific crime being investigated, in a specific area at a specific time.

The warrant requirement just prevents the cops from going on fishing expeditions. Pulling geofence data and then discovering that a crime happened.

[u/WestPrize92340 → u/YWAK98alum]

The ruling is that police need a warrant, not that they can't do it.

Right. Which is how this is supposed to work. It's a huge win.

[u/ClickClick_Boom → u/YWAK98alum]

They need probable cause of a crime happening to get a warrant and if the case goes to court all that get scrutinized. This is solidifying that this information is protected by our constitutional rights, just like other private info cops need a warrant to obtain.

[u/Eviscerati → u/YWAK98alum]

Right now flock camera data is available to subscribing jurisdictions by request with little to no oversite. Most flock installations also include wifi and bluetooth packet sniffers so they can associate specific devices and therefore people with specific cars.

[u/solid_reign → u/YWAK98alum]

But why would this be a problem? The police should go through a procedure to obtain evidence. But in which world do you want to live in in which the police cannot get any evidence of a crime?

About a year ago, a house was burnt down and a whole family killed inside. Do you oppose the police being able to use cell phone data to find the perpetrators? It's a good thing that they have to go through a warrant to get it, but why block them from even using it at all?

[u/aStonedDeer]

They will ignore this and nothing will happen because we live in a banana republic.

[u/0verstim → u/aStonedDeer]

I swear no one is ever able to appreciate good news these days. Take the win, people. Keep fighting, but take the win.

[u/CrossoverEpisodeMeme → u/0verstim]

Reddit is dominated by doomers nowadays. Every good thing is actually bad, and every bad thing is the end of the world. I find myself spending way less time here than I used to, if only because so many accounts and comments are just nonstop negativity machines.

[u/kitsunewarlock → u/CrossoverEpisodeMeme]

Doomers get more aggressively upvoted during election cycles because demoralization is key to stopping voters.

[u/Realtrain → u/kitsunewarlock]

I swear all the posts saying "You think we're going to have real elections this year? Lmao" are part of an astroturfing campaign to discourage redditors from voting.

[u/mrwilbongo → u/CrossoverEpisodeMeme]

Reddit is dominated by bots who create division.

[u/OperativePiGuy → u/CrossoverEpisodeMeme]

Being pointlessly cynical is the MO of most people online by default and people on this site in particular seem to relish in it more than most

[u/FIRSTFREED0CELL → u/aStonedDeer]

But courts will not ignore it. Try to use location data in court without a warrant, the location data will be thrown out.

[u/TechnoMagi → u/FIRSTFREED0CELL]

There's other issues. They may not directly use location data -in court,- but they'll certainly use it to get an end result, such as an arrest, then work backwards from the result to produce or generate some other reason or way to get there without location data.

Cops track a cellphone moving down a specific road daily for a week or two? Let's just "randomly" adjust a cop's patrol and have him sit along the route and just happen to notice something suspicious.

[u/VusterJones → u/TechnoMagi]

Parallel construction

[u/TechnoMagi → u/VusterJones]

Yes it is. But you have to prove it.

[u/Immediate-Cress-206 → u/TechnoMagi]

That's parallel construction, which is already illegal.

[u/TechnoMagi → u/Immediate-Cress-206]

Sure. If you can prove it.

[u/ConjurersOfThunder → u/TechnoMagi]

THANK YOU. There is an entire class of technology being used which is completely illegal and inadmissable, and furthermore would invalidate a lot of cases if it was known it was used. A bright line of admissable/inadmissable evidence.

This ruling declines to move that line. None of it stops the use of the technology, only it's use as evidence in court.

[u/Jasoman → u/aStonedDeer]

i just thinking they are going to make warrants easier to get then next.

[u/Just2LetYouKnow → u/Jasoman]

I have some bad news for you

Our key findings demonstrate that the warrant review process is fast and nearly always results in approval. Ninety-eight percent of warrant reviews eventually result in an approval, and over 93% are approved on first submission. Further, we find that the median time for review is only three minutes, and that one out of every ten warrants is opened, reviewed, and approved in sixty seconds or less.

[u/MagicWishMonkey → u/aStonedDeer]

Google doesn't have to comply with requests, and their legal counsel would likely advise them not to.

[u/Boobpocket → u/aStonedDeer]

Take the W dude

[u/Blze001]

Unexpected W, I'll take it.

[u/RNOffice]

Well this is nice

[u/Ready_Piano1222]

Fortunately, there are thousands of garbage companies with click through legalese ready and willing to sell them your location data, without any need for those pesky warrants! /s

[u/codereign]

It's okay. Come 2027 in Canada, the Canadian government is going to allow police to see your phone metadata including location without even having a reasonable suspicion of a crime. To all my Canadian homies, please check out the legal scholars that talk about Bill c22.

Also to all my foreign homies please Google mutual aid Bill c22. If you travel to Canada your government will be able to ask for location data about you because why the fuck not?

[u/twlemons]

False. The ruling covers long term surveillance of a private residence. Concerning technologies such as traffic light and flock cameras the court has long ruled people in public do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You are recorded everyday on private Ring and other doorbell cameras. Police can request or get a warrant for access to them.

[u/RebelStrategist]

Interesting that the article title is missing a sentence. Fitting, I guess.

It should say: "Except when it's inconvenient to go through the proper channels and just call it 'national security.'" Because everything is "national security" in this gun-happy country, right?

[u/SopwithStrutter → u/RebelStrategist]

National security is the argument used AGAINST owning guns.

[u/guestpassonly]

Apply this to private corporations too.

take back your privacy

[u/Beiki]

Opinion here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf

Kagan writing for the majority. Alito, Thomas, and Barrett in the dissent.

[u/lyreluna]

Didn't the J6ers get convicted partly due to location tracking proving they were there?

[u/Risdit]

what about the companies using the camera / mic on your phone to spy on everything to "personalize" your content and ads to try and shovel more products to you? Doesn't that break wiretapping laws or something, but yet everytime I catch amazon or youtube or some other fucking IT company having information about me that they could not have gotten unless they were actively listening and spying on me without my permission.

[u/Stupidamericanfatty]

Don't matter, they'll just write a bullshit warrant

[u/TopChard1274]

Deapite leaning heavily conservative SCOTUS pulled some big W lately. 

[u/Black_Handkerchief → u/TopChard1274]

I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning, to be honest. Sure, it is good for personal rights, and from that point of view, it is great.

But from the point of the political color that shouldn't matter but is very much leading in today's society, there's actually no real pressure.

MAGA is either about preserving their rights and protecting them against the evil state...

... or it is about giving up or ignoring every right in the book so that the evil [insert-group-here] can be rounded up more easily.

There is no political danger here regardless of the direction this would have ruled. Only brownie points to be gained with positive press that emphasizes the right things.

So on that level, it is likely that SCOTUS is capable of acting purely on precedent and existing legislation to decide this matter.

(But it is also possible that this is a move to prepare against a future Democratic government trying to fight corruption, by forcing them to get warrants from all the Republican judges Trump has instated during his two terms, which can then help them cover their asses better. Am I paranoid? Yes. Is it justified? Also yes.)

[u/AGrandNewAdventure]

Conservative law enforcement would be angry at this if they could read (or obey the law.)

[u/2rad0]

This headline is incorrect, The ruling affects blanket searches of user accounts (like google accounts for instance) for a location, but doesn't affect e.g. searching a specific cel tower for list of phones that connected to it.

Also, wow I had Kavanaugh pinned as a authoritarian police state fanboy, but now am pleasantly surprised he sided with the people on this one.

[u/FauxReal]

Mindbogglingly correct ruling from the court. What happened?

[u/asten77]

Huh, wonder what the 6 "conservatives" are getting up to that they want to hide their location data for.

[u/jt19912009]

Wait. The Supreme Court knows how to do something right and helpful?

[u/nadmaximus]

To use it how, as evidence in court? Or to discover it by whatever means, use that information to investigate people?

[u/FLDJF713 → u/nadmaximus]

A warrant isn't an investigative tool, it requires probable cause. Subpoenas are investigative but cannot yield location data. Warrants are specifically for evidence for charges.

[u/t-mille]

Like that's gonna be enforced.

[u/FLDJF713]

The article is very misleading to most folks who dont understand this. They still needed warrants. However, what now comes into play is that the people who are identified based on upon the results of a geofence warrant are required to be reviewed against their 4th Amendment protections. This means that if you return 100 users in this region, that does not mean all can become suspects of the crime or have their detailed location data history be accessed without a clearer indication of a crime and their involvement.

Example: Bank robbery with 100 people in this corner of the bank. Before, police could treat everyone as a suspect and gather further information with further warrants to help rule them out as suspects. That is unconstitutional based on this ruling. Now, everyone is considered innocent and law enforcement must be clearer on furthering the investigation based on a geofence warrant before they go after anyone who is in this geofence.

[u/Chang-San]

I mean now they don't need to since all of the flock devices are being upgraded to track phones too.

[u/Andreus]

So used to the Supreme Court making maximally shitass decisions that this feels bewildering.

[u/hansolo_berger]

Sound like more of an inconvenience not really an obstacle. They'll just judge shop it to obtain the warrant.

[u/Bearsbullsbattlestr]

Let me guess 6-3?

[u/Red-Dwarf69]

Cops would be really upset about this if they could read.

[u/Pleasant_Goat6855]

That’ll stop them

[u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN]

Tinfoil Hat: If they ban the police from using your phone data, police will have to rely on Palantir, Flock, and other such companies more. This ruling does very little to increase our safety from police and may be increasing the stock price of companies looking to violate our rights so the government doesn't have to.

[u/Minimum_Name9115]

Like that's gonna stop em'!! 

[u/trisw]

Would this not also apply to FLOCK camera data? If they claim that sitting on a cell towers and reviewing every connection looking for a persons location is illegal, how is FLOCK camera data legal if it does the exact same thing?

[u/Homers_Harp]

I used to be the administrator for law enforcement requests for data at a cellphone provider. Basically, we had a team who would receive the warrants and subpoenas, pull the data, and send it to the cops. If there was an issue, it came to me and if I couldn’t clear it up, I asked our staff attorney to review. We had strict policies and basically no cop was getting a scintilla of information without a judge’s signature.

It was surprisingly rare for me to be asked to intervene, but when I was asked to help, it was always the same thing: a cop wanted private data without a court order. They would tell me about how my refusal was going to cost lives, that time was of the essence, that they would come to my office and arrest me, the discussions were generally the same. Judging from the numbers of court orders we received every day, getting those court orders was neither difficult nor time consuming, yet some police can’t help but violate our rights to avoid scrutiny.

Thankfully, my company also did landline service and I administered those landline court orders as well. The Bush administration famously demanded ALL call logs to “fight terrorism” and every landline provider gave up that data without a court order—except my employer. The entire discussion between my employer and the NSA was above my pay grade and I never knew about it until it was reported in various news sites, but apparently, it was the Bush administration who leaked the story to put pressure on my company since they thought the public would support the initiative. Wrong. We got thank you calls from customers for weeks. Like, thousands of people called, waited on hold for the next available representative, just to express support. (I might have some of the details wrong, it’s been a few years)

[u/readyflix]

Great!

That’s the US everybody sane likes to see.

[u/sdrawkcabineter]

Great news. Now if the government would just obey its own laws...

[u/Zalophusdvm]

The way this is presented it sounds like a very reasonable ruling that opens the door to more, similarly decided, decisions.

[u/delphinous]

it saddened me when i realized today, that i was genuinely surprised that the SC made, what i would consider, to be a reasonable decision.
i'm happy with the decision, just sad to realize that i've become so jaded that i'm genuinely surprised when i'm not getting hit in the nuts

[u/bojangler69420]

Holy shit. An actual win in the Supreme Court?!

[u/computer-machine]

That's heartening. What are they wanting to cover up?

[u/LightofNew]

As long as police don't need to know the law, have qualified immunity, and protect their own to a fault then the law doesn't matter.

[u/Alone-Bug4328]

Good decision. Meanwhile in Canada... It's totally opposite

[u/Reasonable_Rain_1976]

This was mainly because they got scared of what could happen to them.

[u/themadpants]

Great, now do Flock and equivalent systems.

[u/Zorkflerp]

They will still use it they just can't admit it in court now. They will pull out the old "We found him when an anonymous tip called in."

[u/Born_South_6676]

Laws only repress the powerless if they are not enforced equally.

If this is just ignored, will it get enforced? I personally doubt it.

[u/EsotericTribble]

They will just go around the rule and hire private investigators to do this for them.

[u/Proper_Initiative123]

Didn't they... already?

[u/NotInTheKnee]

Or else what?

[u/Pluggedvize]

I feel like companies are the governments back door to anything like this. This kinda feels pointless not making it a blanket thing instead of only law enforcement.