Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 In the specific case before the court, the justices ruled that authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access to cell-tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person’s whereabouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I am sure telecom providers would be willing to sell the data to federal agencies if a warrant was too problematic to acquire. They probably already sell the data to travel and credit card companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 19 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: I am sure telecom providers would be willing to sell the data to federal agencies if a warrant was too problematic to acquire. They probably already sell the data to travel and credit card companies. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/verizon-and-att-will-stop-selling-your-phones-location-to-data-brokers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 47 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: I am sure telecom providers would be willing to sell the data to federal agencies if a warrant was too problematic to acquire. They probably already sell the data to travel and credit card companies. IANAL, but my understanding is that if a cell phone provider gives this data away without a warrant, it then can't be used in court. For location data gathered from cell phone towers, you would need to convince a judge and get a warrant in order to use that info. Someone please correct me if that's not the case. What is less clear after this ruling is exactly how broad it is. The court went out of their way to specify that this is a narrow ruling, but they also seem to limit it to location data, which itself is rather broad. So this ruling might be very specific to only data scraped from cell towers, or it could mean a warrant is required for any kind of persistent location tracking, regardless of the third party doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Another good thread: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.