Android Ping!
Well, if they're going to try to use my personal and private information against me, I'm going to use that against them. See "disinformation protocol." ;-\
Posted on 05/31/2016 4:12:05 PM PDT by Swordmaker
COURTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY are grappling with a key question for the information age: When law enforcement asks a company for cellphone records to track location data in an investigation, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment?
By a 12-3 vote, appellate court judges in Richmond, Virginia on Monday ruled that it is not — and therefore does not require a warrant.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld what is known as the third-party doctrine: a legal theory suggesting that consumers who knowingly and willingly surrender information to third parties therefore have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information — regardless of how much information there is, or how revealing it is.
Research clearly shows that cell site location data collected over time can reveal a tremendous amount of personal information — like where you live, where you work, when you travel, who you meet with, who you sleep with. And it’s impossible to make a call without giving up your location to the cellphone company.
“Supreme Court precedent mandates this conclusion,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in the majority opinion. “For the Court has long held that an individual enjoys no Fourth Amendment protection ‘in information he voluntarily turns over to [a] third part[y].’” The quote was from the 1979 Supreme Court case Smith V. Maryland.
The 5th, 6th, and 11th circuits have reached the same conclusion.
However, there’s been a lot of disagreement within the lower courts and among privacy advocates that the third party doctrine is consistent with the way people live their lives in the digital age — primarily on their cellphones.
A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit in fact first ruled last August that getting cell-site records in bulk did constitute a search, triggering a warrant requirement. In the case, United States v. Graham, the government obtained 221 days’ worth of records belonging to a robbery suspect in Baltimore.
The panel’s opinion relied heavily on a separate legal theory to come to that conclusion called mosaic theory: The argument that even if one instance of evidence gathering doesn’t count as a search, asking for a large number of data points can eventually amount to one.
For a while, it looked like there might be a split in the lower courts that would require the Supreme Court to reconsider the third party doctrine.
But now that the 4th Circuit has ruled, that seems less likely.
Privacy advocates were disappointed:
The three judges in the minority wrote a strongly worded dissent.
“Only time will tell whether our society will prove capable of preserving age-old privacy protections in this increasingly networked era. But one thing is sure: this Court’s decision today will do nothing to advance that effort. I dissent,” Judge James Wynn wrote, joined by Henry Floyd and Stephanie Thacker.
“This is a sign that lower courts are still following the third-party doctrine,” Orin Kerr, law professor at George Washington University Law School, wrote in an email to The Intercept. “I think the 4th Circuit correctly applied Supreme Court law. But that doesn’t tell us what the Supreme Court might do.”
While this case “removes the circuit split,” he wrote, a Supreme Court consideration of third-party doctrine issues “will probably happen eventually.”
Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said he remains hopeful.
“In virtually every one of these cases, there have been very strong dissents. That in itself is a very strong message to the Supreme Court,” he said.
He also pointed out that many judges in the majority on these cases have signaled that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. And in several of the appellate cases, judges have called on Congress to do something about it.
Congress is poised to consider the privacy implications of searching stored emails, Wessler said, pointing to popular reform in Congress of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which passed the House unanimously, requiring law enforcement to get a warrant to search old emails.
“Hopefully they can muster the same for location information,” he said.
Ultimately it will come down to a reading of the Fourth Amendment that the words were not frozen in time, blind to technological advances. I find the decision very troubling.
It’s like British General Braddock out in the primeval forest sneaking up on the French by building a road with axes. Do you think that the Indian scouts of the French might figure out where he’s at?
You could just buy a couple of burner phones and then chunk ‘em when you feel like it.
Serious question: do you ever read the EULA for your phone? Whenever I update my iPhone, I get a EULA pop up, and I have to click "Agree" (twice). How about the privacy disclaimer for Facebook? Twitter? Gmail? Have you ever sought out and read the agreements for any of the games you play on your phone or any of the apps you use?
The problem with this court decision is that any third party can force you to give up your privacy if you don't pore over the metric shit ton of legalese they throw at you to use their software. These End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) are akin to very heavily-worded signs that say "this area under constant surveillance." If you avoid any of those areas in public, which is nearly impossible anymore, you're now ceding your privacy on your phone as well.
This is bad. No entity should ever be allowed to preempt a citizen's right to privacy, but now they can. Whether you read the EULA or not, you're now subject to surveillance by the state at any time. Caveat emptor.
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.