- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
In a ruling applying individual constitutional protections to new technology, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that sweeping use of cell phone location data requires a warrant.
The case focused on a Virginia bank robbery, where a conviction rested in part on cell phone location information law enforcement received from Google through a so-called geofence warrant. These allow law enforcement to obtain data showing cell phone users who were in the vicinity of a crime scene, even if they are not targeting a specific suspect.
The court, divided 6-3, found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
You must log in or # to comment.
huh, I wonder what effect this ruling will have on Flock’s business.
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.
He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”
And he says that like it’s a bad thing. What an asshole.
Not really a surprise, but worth pointing out anyway.
Alito is basically a cartoon character at this point.
Shouldn’t be long now before he rules that it’s constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.
Shouldn’t be long now before he rules that it’s constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.
Trolly problem is constitutional, and the corporation in charge of the lever can’t be held liable as long as profits go up
So they’re going to be taking down all the flock cameras then, right?
Flock is planning around that.
They’re increasingly making deals to put their surveillance tech on private property facing public property. The Amazon deal fell through, but it’ll be back much more quietly.
One of the groups they’re making deals with is HOAs. They’re replacing their existing neighborhood cameras with Flock cameras super cheap in order to get cameras facing the road where municipalities have banned them.
Misleading headline: The Court didn’t actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.
What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.
The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.
When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for “reasonable” searches where no warrant is needed.
