Skip to comments.Supreme court cellphone case puts free speech – not just privacy – at risk
Posted on 11/27/2017 10:24:45 PM PST by BenLurkin
The government contends that Carpenter lacks a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his location data because his cellphone was continually sharing that data with his cellphone provider.
Privacy advocates are rightly alarmed by this argument. Much of the digital technology all of us rely on today requires us to share information passively with third parties. Visiting a website, sending an email, buying a book online all of these things require sharing sensitive data with internet service providers, merchants, banks and others. If this kind of commonplace and unavoidable information-sharing is sufficient to extinguish constitutional privacy rights, the digital-age fourth amendment will soon be a dead letter.
To understand the Carpenter cases full significance, though, its necessary to consider the implications the governments arguments have for first amendment rights. In a brief filed in support of Carpenter, 19 leading technologists explain how easy it is to use a persons location data to learn about her beliefs and associations. ... With very few data points, the technologists observe, an analyst can learn whether a given person attended a public demonstration, attended a political meeting, or met with a particular activist or lawyer. With more data, an analyst can identify social networks and learn not only whether a given person was at a public demonstration but who else attended the demonstration with her.
This is why it is a mistake to think about the Carpenter case solely through the lens of individual privacy. A defeat for Carpenter would be a defeat for privacy rights, but it would also mean a dramatic curtailment of first amendment freedoms.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Wow. Thanks for posting.
Combine the info in this article with the fact that Google (of do no evil fame) continuously tracks all locations of Android smart phones even when theyre turned off and you get into pretty scary territory.
GOOGLE IS EVIL
An earlier excerpt:
“Importantly, it turned over these records even though the government had not obtained a warrant based on probable cause. Carpenter asked the court to suppress the governments evidence under the fourth amendment, which protects the right to privacy.”
One would like to think that of course they would need a warrant. However, I know that with certain apps (like Pokemon Go), all of the data (gps locations, times, photos you take, etc.) can be used by Pokemon Go and shared with third parties, including police. It is in the fine print that one agrees to when they sign up. I guess it depends on what the cell-phone provider has in their fine print. And no - I don’t read all of that crap, although I should.
your location info will be useful to
Any innocent person within a mile of a crime scene becomes a potential witness, and therefore a person of interest who could theoretically be detained until the authorities get around to taking a statement.
One more step towards the Total Surveillance state.
Privacy does not exist if you are in anyway participating in society. Cell phones, credit cards, cars that have computers, security cameras everywhere... There may be a veil, consisting mostly of indifference, to accessing anyone’s information but the information is there and accessible to Google or government or any body who might wish to track it down.
The government thinks it has the right to all data everywhere. It has the right to no data. It has the right to shut up and leave us alone.
Stated more fundamentally... the Fed Gov does not have rights at all. It is a tasked agency with defined authorities. All natural rights are retained by the States and the people, as acknowledged in the 10th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.