JusticeSonia Sotomayorwisely recognized this growing conflict in her own concurrence, addressing the problem of privacy in the digital age. After all, what reasonable expectation of privacy do people have when iPhone owners constantly and willingly, though perhaps inadvertently, reveal their location to third parties like Google or AT&T? What is to stop companies from turning over that information to law enforcement agencies? Can one even function in the modern world without revealing such information?
TheSupreme Courtmade a surprisingly unanimous decision Monday in United States v. Jones, ruling that law enforcement officers cannot placeGlobal Positioning Systemtrackers on cars without a warrant.
While technological progress has made life easier for most of us, it has also done the same for law enforcement agencies. New inventions have raised questions about civil liberties that past Supreme Courts - let alone the Founding Fathers - could not have conceived.
In the meantime, Congress and the president could take steps to make sure that just because Facebook knows something about us doesnt mean the FBI does as well. People may willingly give up privacy in vor of convenience, but that should not open the door to unreasonable search. Lawmakers could act to clarify these rights, rather than let that duty ll solely upon the Supreme Court.
Whatever the case, the Marlins committed turnover after Editorial: Warrantless GPS tracking is unwarranted global positioning systemturnover down the stretch and watched a double-digit lead get sliced down to a...
It used to be that one of the greatest protections that people had against overly aggressive police surveillance wasnt just the Constitution, but the sheer physical investment required to accomplish such a task. Before GPS, police departments would hglobal positioning systemave to dedicate a team of officers to do what a beeping box does now. But what law enforcement agency would undertake such an effort unless it already had enough information to get a warrant?
Editorial: Warrantless GPS tracking is unwarranted global positioning system,The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, s, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Cars, however, have generally been given distinctly less protection than a persons house. While based on common law precedent, this always seemed like an argument made by judges who were not native to a city like Houston, where ones car can seem like a second home (rather than being merely enumerated among ones important possessions or effects). So were glad that the court held that police officers cannot intrude into ones car - even if merely placing a GPS tracker under the bumper - without a warrant.
Anderson, 46, who retired from dancing in 2006 to become an education ambassador for Houston Ballet, will share tales of dance and...
The Supreme Court made a surprisingly unanimous decision Monday in United States v. Jones, ruling that law enforcement officers cannot place Global Positioning System trackers on cars without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,...
Justice Sotomayor raised these questions, and it may ultimately ll to the Supreme Court to rule on where companies must draw the line between responsibility to their customers and their obligation to law enforcement.
