Supreme Court: Warrants Needed for Cell Phone Data The Supreme Court today issued a 5-4 ruling stating that law enforcement must first seek a warrant before obtaining historical cell phone location data from cellular carriers, reversing a decade-long practice by law enforcement. The "Carpenter case" focused on a criminal by the name of Timothy Carpenter, who was busted for a string of armed robberies thanks to historical location data obtained by MetroPCS without a warrant, police claiming that because the MVNO already had his data, there could be "no reasonable expectation of privacy."

The Supreme Court's ruling shot down that narrative, Chief Justice John Roberts stating that the government's warrantless access to cell-site records over a period of time "contravenes that expectation" of privacy. "The fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection," said Roberts. "Because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States -- not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation -- this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone," he added. It's worth noting that the ruling, while huge, is also a bit narrow in that it only applies to historical cell phone location data, not real-time location data tracking or so-called cell tower dumps. Groups like the ACLU remained jubilant at the ruling, which had been highly anticipated by privacy rights organizations. "This is a groundbreaking victory for Americans’ privacy rights in the digital age,” said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case before the court last November. "The Supreme Court has given privacy law an update that it has badly needed for many years, finally bringing it in line with the realities of modern life. The government can no longer claim that the mere act of using technology eliminates the Fourth Amendment’s protections." "This is a groundbreaking victory for Americans’ privacy rights in the digital age,” said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case before the court last November. "The Supreme Court has given privacy law an update that it has badly needed for many years, finally bringing it in line with the realities of modern life. The government can no longer claim that the mere act of using technology eliminates the Fourth Amendment’s protections."







News Jump Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 33 comments



cb14

join:2013-02-04

Miami Beach, FL 21 recommendations cb14 Member wow. It's amazing that this court can get something right.

Economist

The economy, stupid

Premium Member

join:2015-07-10

united state 3 recommendations Economist Premium Member Finally a small speed bump... ...in government's never ending quest for power over people. Government at all levels increasingly sees the Constitution as an annoying hinderance to be ignored when convenient.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 3 recommendations maartena Premium Member Don't forget....



Also, sysadmins from said mobile phone providers still have access to that data, and they CAN and HAVE been bribed. Just FYI Police needs a warrant so the information can be used in court. It doesn't stop the CIA/NSA from accessing the data, they don't need a warrant for anything if they want to "research" something.....Also, sysadmins from said mobile phone providers still have access to that data, and they CAN and HAVE been bribed. Just FYI