Cell Phone Location Data - Supreme Court

[chasfm11]

Please feel free to move this if I picked the wrong place.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the government has to have a warrant to track your cell phone data. Or at least that is what the news story says.

I think that I like the ruling. But here is what scares me. It was 5-4 with Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch on the dissent. Can it be possible that I'm on the same side of ANY discussion with Justice Ginsberg?

Please tell me why I shouldn't be happy with this.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_h315.pdf

[chasfm11]

..and not to send the thread off in the wrong direction immediately but the majority opinion that despite the huge change in technology with the cell phone, the Forth Amendment still applies pretty much undercuts the "musket" problem with the Second Amendment. Or perhaps that is just my wishful thinking.

[Papa_Tiger]

In general, the "conservative" justices have a tendency of voting with those giving power to the government to track or monitor the populace. This was one of my major issues with Scalia. In most cases I think he got things right with the strict interpretation of the constitution, but in these instances of privacy and lessening the power of the government, I think he and many of the other "conservative" justices were dead wrong.

Yes, it can be hard to find yourself in agreement with as liberal a Justice as Ginsberg, if you traditionally hold to conservative views, but in this case I think it the "liberal" justices were right.

[Flightmare]

In general, the "conservative" justices have a tendency of voting with those giving power to the government to track or monitor the populace. This was one of my major issues with Scalia. In most cases I think he got things right with the strict interpretation of the constitution, but in these instances of privacy and lessening the power of the government, I think he and many of the other "conservative" justices were dead wrong.

Yes, it can be hard to find yourself in agreement with as liberal a Justice as Ginsberg, if you traditionally hold to conservative views, but in this case I think it the "liberal" justices were right.

I think it also goes to show that you won't find anyone that you agree with 100%, nor will you find anyone that you disagree with 100%. Everyone tends to fall somewhere in between.

[Syntyr]

Yes, it can be hard to find yourself in agreement with as liberal a Justice as Ginsberg, if you traditionally hold to conservative views, but in this case I think it the "liberal" justices were right.

I am as conservative as they come and I think this is a good decision. I also think Apple locking down iPhones is a good idea. At the same time people have to recognize how hard the job of policing is and give cops some leeway in their expectations. They are not supermen.

[MaduroBU]

I think that data needs to come from citizens. When you notice something that's off, call it in. It may not be your house getting burglarized by that shady looking character, but the next time it might. Human intelligence is a very powerful force if mobilized.

[twomillenium]

In general, the "conservative" justices have a tendency of voting with those giving power to the government to track or monitor the populace. This was one of my major issues with Scalia. In most cases I think he got things right with the strict interpretation of the constitution, but in these instances of privacy and lessening the power of the government, I think he and many of the other "conservative" justices were dead wrong.

Yes, it can be hard to find yourself in agreement with as liberal a Justice as Ginsberg, if you traditionally hold to conservative views, but in this case I think it the "liberal" justices were right.

I think it also goes to show that you won't find anyone that you agree with 100%, nor will you find anyone that you disagree with 100%. Everyone tends to fall somewhere in between.

Your right! I just did not think it would happen so soon! I have to agree with the liberals this time. I have not read their reasoning, I just go by behavioral history. Like the fact that the Govt. would not take advantage of this, as in they really don't listen to cell calls indiscriminately. Or the DOJ would never tell congress or the public something that is not true.

[C-dub]

I'm not really sure what to think of this. One BG confessed and gave several phone numbers of accomplices. I read that to obtain a warrant was much more difficult and the FBI obtained the data they needed via the Stored Communication Act, but I'm having a difficult time understanding why that was unacceptable since it did offer

"... specific
and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Requiring warrants for obtaining such information is a good thing, but my difficulty here, I think, is in understanding how they couldn't have met those requirements based on what they were given by the one BG about his accomplices.

My other problem is with the dissenting justices. How could they not think warrants were required for this? Is it because of the same thing I mention in the first paragraph above? I haven't read the entire thing yet. I'll get back to reading in a minute.

[OlBill]

My understanding is the objection of Goresuch and Thomas was that the information was the property of the phone company and their property rights were being infringed.

[spectre]

Any information government employees are allowed to get about a citizen without a warrant, citizens should be allowed to get about any government employee.