This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot)The Supreme Court heard arguments today for Carpenter v. United States, a case that could have serious implications on how police use cellphones to track a person's location.After failing to catch Carpenter initially, FBI agents requested cellphone data from wireless carriers, with a court order from a magistrate judge under the Stored Communications Act.ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler told The Verge that the government could potentially obtain even more sensitive personal data beyond location data without a warrant if the court rules in its favor."It would imperil the privacy of all kinds of data that we really can't avoid creating in the digital age," he said, "Some are queries we enter into Google, our web browsing history, medical information, fertility tracking data from a smartphone app, [and] new information from Internet of Things devices we put in our homes."Courts have traditionally ruled that citizens can't expect privacy after they've given up their data to a third party like a phone company.Who argued Carpenter's case in today's hearing, says the Fourth Amendment requires police to either request warrants before they can access location data, or limit requests to a more specific period of time.Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Carpenter#1 data#2 privacy#3 Court#4 location#5Post found in /r/news, /r/thenewsrightnow, /r/badgovnofreedom and /r/Techfeed.NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot)
The Supreme Court heard arguments today for Carpenter v. United States, a case that could have serious implications on how police use cellphones to track a person's location.
After failing to catch Carpenter initially, FBI agents requested cellphone data from wireless carriers, with a court order from a magistrate judge under the Stored Communications Act.
ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler told The Verge that the government could potentially obtain even more sensitive personal data beyond location data without a warrant if the court rules in its favor.
"It would imperil the privacy of all kinds of data that we really can't avoid creating in the digital age," he said, "Some are queries we enter into Google, our web browsing history, medical information, fertility tracking data from a smartphone app, [and] new information from Internet of Things devices we put in our homes."
Courts have traditionally ruled that citizens can't expect privacy after they've given up their data to a third party like a phone company.
Who argued Carpenter's case in today's hearing, says the Fourth Amendment requires police to either request warrants before they can access location data, or limit requests to a more specific period of time.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Carpenter#1 data#2 privacy#3 Court#4 location#5
Post found in /r/news, /r/thenewsrightnow, /r/badgovnofreedom and /r/Techfeed.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J