Carrying a cellphone creates a "historical log" of movements, privacy expert says

Carrying a cellphone creates a

Carrying a cellphone creates a "historical log" of movements, privacy expert says

Roberts said the court's decision is limited to cellphone tracking information and does not affect other business records, including those held by banks. United States case, where in 2011, Carpenter was convicted of robbery after the police gathered location data from his cellular carrier. Fear of this risky imbalance of power led to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which broadly requires a warrant for searches and seizures by the government.

Even with the court's ruling in Carpenter's favour, it's too soon to know whether he will benefit from Friday's decision, said Harold Gurewitz, Carpenter's lawyer in Detroit. In Hill's perspective, though, the ruling does not answer all outstanding questions about cell phones and the expectation of privacy. In a narrow 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts joined four liberal justices and declared that "individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements", and noted that a phone's Global Positioning System records "give the Government near-perfect surveillance and allow it to travel back in time to retrace a person's whereabouts". Since cell phone location data is logged automatically "without any affirmative act on the part of the user beyond powering up", Roberts wrote, "in no meaningful sense does the user voluntarily "assume the risk" of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements".

As a result, he said, "when the government tracks the location of a cellphone it achieves near flawless surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user".

Butler said the government can track you everywhere you go. In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito predicted the ruling will "cause upheaval" when it comes to information requests in investigations, noting that "treating an order to produce like an actual search, as today's decision does, is revolutionary". "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", said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the Supreme Court case in November. The records covered 127 days, revealing 12,898 separate points of location data.

"This is a groundbreaking victory for Americans' privacy rights in the digital age".

"There has been a seismic shift in technology and also in the implications for privacy since the 1970s when most of these cases were decided", Butler said. "The government can no longer claim that the mere act of using technology eliminates the Fourth Amendment's protections". The government's interpretation of the Third Party Doctrines saw a cell phone service provider as a legitimate third party, regardless of the fact that customers can't use these devices at all without communicating that information.

Related news