Here is the thing, in general there is no reason the police can't just get a search warrant. If they want the information of where your cell phone was they can simply apply for a warrant and they will most likely get it. The Supreme Court did allow for special circumstances like kidnappings or other crimes where time is of the essence. But if there is plenty of time why not require a search warrant?

Many people on this form are strongly against gun registration as they think it aware of tracking gun owners and potentially seizing their guns. I am not sure why the same concern about the government's ability to track your phone without a warrant does not produce the same level of concern.

I very much understand the whole third-party argument, because the Bill of Rights protects people from the government not from other individuals or businesses. I think the difference here is that cell phones represent such a unique situation.

I do think there are other situations where the whole third-party exemption thing would not stand up to scrutiny. I have a mortgage on my house which technically means the bank owns it until I pay them. Does that mean they can give permission to search my house since they are a third party? Of course not. But here is the real question. If all these third-party businesses are so ready to hand over our information to law enforcement then where is the significant difference between the government and private parties?  If they do it every time the government asks then at what point do they simply become an agent of the government? What stops them from essentially just fishing for whatever they want? Check your bank and credit cards to see where you spend money and what services you bought for your home, then interview anyone who's ever entered your home and ask about whatever they have seen inside your home. It's still essentially a surveillance state just operated under the guise of Private Business.

Obviously the simplest measure would be simply to insist that all companies you do business with have a do not release policy in the contract. A second possible option would be to have Congress pass a law that protects information like cell phone location.

Police can search your trash can. They can also request the dumpster company give police access to search.  All without a warrant.  Giving the refuse company your trash doesn't protect your rights.

The mortgage example is obviously very poor. Having a lien on someone's property doesn't pass title to you.  As long as your collateral property -- car, house, boat, whatever -- is in your name legally, a lien holder has no right to it.  If, however, you miss a payment, they can repossess it. Then all privacy bets are off.

.

I mentioned a mortgage as the most extreme possible, the worst slippery slope imaginable. A better example would be a rental unit, because a owner can make inspections of the unit even though they may not be living there. However if they make checks on behalf of the police then they are considered an agent of the police and Fourth Amendment issues come into play there. At least I know this to be true for Hawaii however I don't know to what extent other states have a similar legal framework for that.

So do you think law enforcement should have to ask for a warrant for private information about you held by a third-party? Even if you do not believe it is protected under the Fourth Amendment would you want to have Congress pass a law that protects such information?

I do think a distinction can be made between the government asking a business for your information and a business volunteering information about you to the government. So if for example you bought a bunch of bomb materials at the hardware store and they called the police that is a little different than the police asking a business to search there sales database.

T-Mobile Privacy Policy Excerpts...

Below is some further information of the types of information we collect:

CPNI. Customer Proprietary Network Information is personal information generated in connection with telecommunications services,
such as call details, call location information, and some information about rate plans and features. CPNI does not include your name,
address, or phone number. For more information on CPNI, please see Privacy Resources/CPNI.

Location Data. We may collect your device’s location whenever it is turned on (subject to coverage limitations).

When We Share Information Collected About You

For Legal Process and Protection. We will provide customer information where necessary to comply with the law,
such as disclosure of your information to a law enforcement agency for your safety or the safety of
others, or when compelled by subpoena or other legal process.

You're cloaking a specific case inside a general, ambiguous question.  Stick to the facts of the case.

The 3rd party (cell providers) provided general location data they routinely collect for a variety of purposes
to law enforcement in response to a court order
in accordance with the contract between the provider and the customer.

I don't see a problem with that.  A court order based on adequate justification is just like a warrant -- there was a valid reason for the request. The only real difference is the standard of probable cause needed for a warrant.

It's not any different than collecting video from local ATMs and traffic cams to gather evidence you were in the area at a time of interest.  Your phone is sending out signals anyone can collect, just like your image does in public. There's no expectation of privacy, even if it involves a service provider. Technically, ANY cell tower owner could collect that data and turn it over to the Cops -- entities with whom you have no contractual relationship.

It's in the contract.  Case closed.

Privacy is YOUR responsibility when in public. Don't like it?  Reality is a bitch.

You didn't answer the question of whether you think we should take an extra step to protect it, whether by law or by contract, curious about your answer there. Something along the lines of laws that protect your medical information perhaps.


I did answer you, in the context of this case.  I'm not following you down yet another hypothetical rabbit hole.  I stated I was fine with the cell phone data being handed over the way it was done in this case.

Medical information has specific sets of laws protecting them.  As a patient, those laws protect against release without subpoena, warrant or patient/legal guardian permission. DNA and blood tests can't be forcibly collected directly without a warrant, so don't leave your pacifier lying around.

Cell phone data is not medical info.  Therefore, the release is not as damaging.  Some medical conditions and history can never be altered.  Someone with a genetic disease or HIV is affected for the rest of his life, whereas cell data is perishable and irrelevant without other facts, such as a crime or false statement regarding whereabouts.



I am ok with a court order or a warrant but from what I read on the case it did not say the court ordered the release of data.

Then you didn't bother to read the 2 links I posted with the SC and 6th Court of Appeals decisions.


The difference between cell phone data and an ATM camera is that a cell phone is way more intimate. Phone calls also travel over private phone lines, maybe cops shouldn't need a warrant to listen to our calls either?


Vicinity data from a cell is not "intimate". I explained that before.  Not all cell data is the same.

Straw man argument:  No one was listening to conversations in this case.

Question is why didn't the founding fathers include a general right to privacy in the bill of rights?

Best thing to do is pass a broader privacy constitutional amendment.  May not be possible with a conservative congress and president though.  I wouldn't pass laws against private companies preventing voluntary sharing of information cause there's already too much government regulation.  It's something the companies, customers, and shareholders can settle on their own with competition, protests, boycotts, etc.  Most people don't care though cause they would've done something about it already.l

I think the most obvious answer would be that they did not foresee modern electronic. The 4th amendment lists persons, houses, papers and effects  which would seem to cover just about everything back in those days. Maybe they felt broad language would be as protective as is the covered specific thing.

Now so much of our stuff is electronic. We also have all sorts of personal information we need to protect that didn't exist back then. No one needed to hide a social security number or worry about a fake credit card in their name. The government also didn't have the ability to spy on someone with such impunity as exists today.

I have no idea how you can hold these opinions.  In the pre-2000 years, your point was valid. Now, though, the laws have mostly caught up with the majority of digital technologies. Electronic storage has the same basic privacy protections as paper storage. Big difference is the amount of work and technology needed to actually protect it.  That's not a "the laws are old" thing. It's a "keeping up with changes" thing.

We know WHAT needs to be done.  What changes now is the "HOW".

No, I did not read your links, I read two others when I originally started the thread. I will check yours out. Honestly though after considering it a little more I see no real argument against requiring a warrant instead of just a court order. Cops should just do it the correct through way to build the strongest case.

I said cell phone location is more intimate than an atm camera, yes I know it isn't as accurate as gps data but it is still pretty intimate. With modern technology cell phone location data based on cell towers has gotten quite a bit more accurate though.

I know it did not involve listening but it is not a straw man because the point was to illustrate the slippery slope of looking at all third party stuff as unprotected. The lines are owned by a private business so if we are to apply your logic then all information transmitted on those lines technically shouldn't be protected if the government asks to look.

SLIPPERY SLOPE is a classic logical fallacy.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals.
Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to
emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.