If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Your cell phone location metadata now requires warrant for police to access, but if you access this article through your cell phone they will know and charge you with interference   (popsci.com) divider line 13
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

1881 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jun 2014 at 11:07 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-13 10:35:01 AM  
Correction, your cell phone location metadata now requires a warrant for police to access in the 11th circuit (so, Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Not binding anywhere else.
 
2014-06-13 11:24:19 AM  

RexTalionis: Correction, your cell phone location metadata now requires a warrant for police to access in the 11th circuit (so, Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Not binding anywhere else.


It is good precendent. It will spread.

And yes you are technically correct

/the best kind of correct
 
2014-06-13 11:30:53 AM  

RexTalionis: Correction, your cell phone location metadata now requires a warrant for police to access in the 11th circuit (so, Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Not binding anywhere else.


The NSA doesn't care.
 
2014-06-13 11:32:51 AM  
1-ps.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-06-13 11:33:06 AM  
Can they charge you with interference and deny they are collecting say data at the same time?

US pushing local police departments to keep quiet on cell-phone surveillance technology

Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment.
 
2014-06-13 11:38:40 AM  
*said
 
2014-06-13 11:50:39 AM  

RexTalionis: Correction, your cell phone location metadata now requires a warrant for police to access in the 11th circuit (so, Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Not binding anywhere else.


And all of Canada. Just came down today.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1214552-police-need-warrant-for- ca nadians-internet-data-high-court-rules#.U5sDJ3tWl4M.twitter
 
2014-06-13 12:24:56 PM  
Hopefully this is the same decisions other courts will come to. If courts are finding that the metadata is protected then surely they will also find that the data on the phone is protected, because I've read a couple of articles recently about police officers searching people's cell phones.
 
2014-06-13 12:28:49 PM  
I feel so much safer knowing that the police will have to wait an extra 20 minutes for a judge to rubber stamp a warrant before invading my privacy.
 
2014-06-13 12:48:14 PM  
These two don't need no stinkin warrant.
static.tvgcdn.net
 
2014-06-13 02:10:07 PM  
well... what's the punishment for violating the new ruling?

usually, search and seizure violations are dealt with by applying the exclusionary rule, which means that any information obtained by the illegal search (and the information derived from) cannot be used as evidence.

but, if you're the nsa, who has no intent to arrest and prosecute, what's the penalty for violating?
 
2014-06-13 02:26:19 PM  

RexTalionis: Correction, your cell phone location metadata now requires a warrant for police to access in the 11th circuit (so, Alabama, Georgia and Florida).

Not binding anywhere else.


Honestly I'm sad this wasn't one of the NSA reforms Obama proposed
 
2014-06-13 02:42:40 PM  

pute kisses like a man: well... what's the punishment for violating the new ruling?

usually, search and seizure violations are dealt with by applying the exclusionary rule, which means that any information obtained by the illegal search (and the information derived from) cannot be used as evidence.

but, if you're the nsa, who has no intent to arrest and prosecute, what's the penalty for violating?


Good question.  The 11th Circuit here applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and said that because the police were acting in the good faith belief that a court order authorized and required their actions, the evidence would not be excluded.

Does the good faith exception threaten to swallow the exclusionary rule?  Why yes, yes it does.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report