Victory! Supreme Court Says Constitution Protects People’s Location Data
Victory! Supreme Court Says Constitution Protects People’s Location Data
You have an expectation of privacy in location data that reveals your movements in the physical world, and even short-term surveillance of these movements is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Chatrie v.Electronic Frontier Foundation
like this

Maeve
in reply to Clippy • • •TiredTiger
in reply to Maeve • • •Maeve
in reply to TiredTiger • • •Yup.
Edit: or "espionage."
ghost_laptop
in reply to Maeve • • •Maeve
in reply to ghost_laptop • • •reallykindasorta
in reply to Clippy • • •TiredTiger
in reply to Clippy • • •DevoidWisdom
in reply to TiredTiger • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to TiredTiger • • •IDK if it will directly impact Flocks - although I don't know it won't. But at the very least, it helps build momentum. There is a national level, bipartisan bill to heavily restrict ALPR now. The more legal momentum there is vs related issues like geofence requests, the easier it is for that to pass. Also a lot of municipalities have already banned ALPRs locally, so that also helps build momentum.
I fucking hate ALPRs.
A Bipartisan Amendment Would End Police License Plate Tracking Nationwide
Dell Cameron (WIRED)Batmorous
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •ayyy
in reply to TiredTiger • • •TiredTiger
in reply to ayyy • • •threeganzi
in reply to Clippy • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to threeganzi • • •Disclaimer -> NAL. I think it's extraordinarily rare for rulings to have retroactive effect. If sth was legal when you did it, you can't be held to account if that thing becomes illegal later on. That would open up all kinds of bad probs. Editing to add, your ability to follow the law today, can't require that you successfully predict future laws or future court decisions.
But geo-fence data already collected would fall under this decision in the future. So let's say there's 2024 data. Data still exists on some Google server. Now it's 2028. Cops would need a warrant to obtain the 2024 data in 2028.
That's my understanding. Again NAL.
threeganzi
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •A definitely not l lawyer ,but also though that, not knowing/understanding a law usually does not shield you from said law, right? And doesn’t the ruling mainly clarify what the law actually “means”?
If that is the case I could still try actions made in the past, no?
unitedwithme
in reply to Clippy • • •whatiswrongwithyou
in reply to unitedwithme • • •heavy
in reply to Clippy • • •like this
TVA likes this.
FineCoatMummy
in reply to heavy • • •It only applies to the government, by requiring 4A protections for geofence requests. A judicial warrant will be needed for the cops to go to Google or w/e and say, "Give us everyone in this area on Tuesday Aug 9th". Which ofc will include innocent ppl along with the accused. It won't directly efffect private recording and data collection.
There are tricky issues around private collection. Conflicting rights between parties, even. Anyway, it's possible that this + other cases like Carpenter v. United States could restrict gov purchases of loc data on the open market, not just direct requests to Google. NAL, and IDK how it might go. I imagine we might see further lawsuits as this bubbles through the legal system and there are 2ndary issues that arise from it.
like this
TVA likes this.
Autonomous
in reply to heavy • • •Batmorous
in reply to Clippy • • •StellarExtract
in reply to Clippy • • •vinylll04
in reply to Clippy • • •