US Supr. Court Ruling on Cell Phone Privacy

[Penn]

Cell phones are an extension of the person.

All law enforcement was doing was asking or location information from the provider and they got it without a warrant. Supreme Court ruled against that today.

What I found even more interesting than ruling in favor of privacy (as if that isn't interesting?) is what was written in the official reasoning. I haven't read it myself yet but according to a local radio personality I trust in the ruling was something about cell phones have become an extension of the individual. Lines in justification of rulings have been known to set certain legal precedence in cases or situations not directly related to the actual rulings in the past.

What could it possibly mean that cell phones are legally an extension of the person?

[MurphCID]

I read it, and I agree with the ruling. I have to get a search warrant for that data, I don't see why the Feds can get it without a warrant. A warrant protects everyones rights, and it is the right thing to do.

[Snafu]

Under new laws here in Australia law enforcement as well as a lot of other government bodies can obtain that info and more without any need for a warrant.

Welcome to the Brave New World

[Portreve]

If that's what happened with the SCOTUS, then that's a good thing.

Here's the deal, though: AT&T has direct access facility rooms set up for the U.S. Government's intelligence apparatus which allows them to acquire all data all the time. Here's the link to a Wikipedia article on the subject, but by all means please go and independently research and verify it to your own individual satisfaction. These rooms have been around for a very long time, and so the point about "You need a warrant" is pretty much meaningless except for perhaps the device you own in question.

This, of course, is part of a much larger security conversation, much of which naturally is political in nature and therefore not appropriate for discussion here. However, consider that anybody who knows anything at all knows they need to exclusively use encrypted means if they intend to have ANY privacy at all. It also explains why the current U.S. Presidential Administration has pretty taken drastic measures to obtain devices and try and restrict people from using Signal, Telegram, etc., because all these products are actually well respected.

Again, all I'm trying to get at here is central national governments, like the U.S. Government, are known to do whatever they want regardless of what laws are on the books.

Australia, from what I know of it by way of an ex-girlfriend of mine, does not have as well established or defined privacy rights as we do here. There's no equivalent to the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, there's little expectation of privacy in public spaces or motor vehicles, and probably relatively little in homes, too. They're not a great example to hold up here; Germany would actually be a far better example if, for example, the Bundestag let any kind of searches and/or seizures occur without higher level government oversight.

[GS3]

Australia, from what I know of it by way of an ex-girlfriend of mine, does not have as well established or defined privacy rights as we do here. There's no equivalent to the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination,

I do not have to know anything about Australia to know this is nonsense.

Fact:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/15 ... roceedings

Privilege in respect of self-incrimination in other proceedings

15.89 The common law privilege against self-incrimination entitles a person to refuse to answer any question, or produce any document, if the answer or the production would tend to incriminate that person.[123] Although broadly referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination, the concept encompasses three distinct privileges: a privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters; a privilege against self-exposure to a civil or administrative penalty (including any monetary penalty which might be imposed by a court or an administrative authority, but excluding private civil proceedings for damages); and a privilege against self-exposure to the forfeiture of an existing right (which is less commonly invoked).

.
.
And, by the way, here is the Wikipedia article about the case being discussed: Carpenter vs. U.S.