SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A man on a cellphone walks through Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/Flickr/cc)
'Groundbreaking Victory' for Privacy as Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless Cellphone Tracking
"The government can no longer claim that just using technology like your cellphones means you've given up your Fourth Amendment rights," says the ACLU. "This is huge."
Jun 22, 2018
In a decision that digital rights advocates called "a groundbreaking victory for Americans' privacy rights," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that police generally must obtain a warrant before collecting cellphone records that can be used to track a person's movements.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the petitioner, predicted the "historic" win "will have a ripple effect for privacy," particularly as it applies to data held by third parties. As the group explained in a series of tweets, "It will help protect all sorts of digital information stored online, from emails to data from smart home appliances."
Nate Freed Wessler, the ACLU staff attorney who argued the case, discussed the ruling and what it could mean for future cases in a short video posted on Twitter:
Famed government whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted the decision was a "victory for ACLU--and America."
Chief Justice John Roberts--joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan--wrote the majority opinion (pdf), which explained: "Cellphones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by continuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called 'cell sites.' Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information."
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to serve more than 100 years in prison for multiple robberies in Michigan and Ohio. With a court order that has a lower standard than a warrant, investigators obtained more than four months of location records from Carpenter's cellphone company, and used that information to build a case against him.
Considering that CSLI data "is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled," and that "individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements," the court determined that "the government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI" to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The narrow ruling, Roberts noted, does not apply to "other business records that might incidentally reveal location information" or "other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security." He added that warrantless searches still may be conducted under "exigent circumstances."
The Constitution Project called the ruling a "long-overdue advance for privacy rights" but also accused the court of "taking baby steps as tech sprints ahead."
The high court's other four conservative justices--Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas--each wrote dissenting opinions. The ruling on Friday follows a 2014 decision in which the justices unanimously determined that police must obtain a warrant before they can search the cellphone of an arrested person.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a decision that digital rights advocates called "a groundbreaking victory for Americans' privacy rights," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that police generally must obtain a warrant before collecting cellphone records that can be used to track a person's movements.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the petitioner, predicted the "historic" win "will have a ripple effect for privacy," particularly as it applies to data held by third parties. As the group explained in a series of tweets, "It will help protect all sorts of digital information stored online, from emails to data from smart home appliances."
Nate Freed Wessler, the ACLU staff attorney who argued the case, discussed the ruling and what it could mean for future cases in a short video posted on Twitter:
Famed government whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted the decision was a "victory for ACLU--and America."
Chief Justice John Roberts--joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan--wrote the majority opinion (pdf), which explained: "Cellphones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by continuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called 'cell sites.' Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information."
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to serve more than 100 years in prison for multiple robberies in Michigan and Ohio. With a court order that has a lower standard than a warrant, investigators obtained more than four months of location records from Carpenter's cellphone company, and used that information to build a case against him.
Considering that CSLI data "is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled," and that "individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements," the court determined that "the government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI" to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The narrow ruling, Roberts noted, does not apply to "other business records that might incidentally reveal location information" or "other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security." He added that warrantless searches still may be conducted under "exigent circumstances."
The Constitution Project called the ruling a "long-overdue advance for privacy rights" but also accused the court of "taking baby steps as tech sprints ahead."
The high court's other four conservative justices--Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas--each wrote dissenting opinions. The ruling on Friday follows a 2014 decision in which the justices unanimously determined that police must obtain a warrant before they can search the cellphone of an arrested person.
In a decision that digital rights advocates called "a groundbreaking victory for Americans' privacy rights," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that police generally must obtain a warrant before collecting cellphone records that can be used to track a person's movements.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the petitioner, predicted the "historic" win "will have a ripple effect for privacy," particularly as it applies to data held by third parties. As the group explained in a series of tweets, "It will help protect all sorts of digital information stored online, from emails to data from smart home appliances."
Nate Freed Wessler, the ACLU staff attorney who argued the case, discussed the ruling and what it could mean for future cases in a short video posted on Twitter:
Famed government whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted the decision was a "victory for ACLU--and America."
Chief Justice John Roberts--joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan--wrote the majority opinion (pdf), which explained: "Cellphones perform their wide and growing variety of functions by continuously connecting to a set of radio antennas called 'cell sites.' Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information."
The case in question involved Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to serve more than 100 years in prison for multiple robberies in Michigan and Ohio. With a court order that has a lower standard than a warrant, investigators obtained more than four months of location records from Carpenter's cellphone company, and used that information to build a case against him.
Considering that CSLI data "is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled," and that "individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements," the court determined that "the government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI" to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The narrow ruling, Roberts noted, does not apply to "other business records that might incidentally reveal location information" or "other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security." He added that warrantless searches still may be conducted under "exigent circumstances."
The Constitution Project called the ruling a "long-overdue advance for privacy rights" but also accused the court of "taking baby steps as tech sprints ahead."
The high court's other four conservative justices--Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas--each wrote dissenting opinions. The ruling on Friday follows a 2014 decision in which the justices unanimously determined that police must obtain a warrant before they can search the cellphone of an arrested person.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.