- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
In a ruling applying individual constitutional protections to new technology, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that sweeping use of cell phone location data requires a warrant.
The case focused on a Virginia bank robbery, where a conviction rested in part on cell phone location information law enforcement received from Google through a so-called geofence warrant. These allow law enforcement to obtain data showing cell phone users who were in the vicinity of a crime scene, even if they are not targeting a specific suspect.
The court, divided 6-3, found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
You must log in or # to comment.
So they’re going to be taking down all the flock cameras then, right?
Flock is planning around that.
They’re increasingly making deals to put their surveillance tech on private property facing public property. The Amazon deal fell through, but it’ll be back much more quietly.
One of the groups they’re making deals with is HOAs. They’re replacing their existing neighborhood cameras with Flock cameras super cheap in order to get cameras facing the road where municipalities have banned them.
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.
He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”
And he says that like it’s a bad thing. What an asshole.
Not really a surprise, but worth pointing out anyway.
