The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.

The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.

In a ruling applying individual constitutional protections to new technology, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that sweeping use of cell phone location data requires a warrant.

The case focused on a Virginia bank robbery, where a conviction rested in part on cell phone location information law enforcement received from Google through a so-called geofence warrant. These allow law enforcement to obtain data showing cell phone users who were in the vicinity of a crime scene, even if they are not targeting a specific suspect.

The court, divided 6-3, found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  • MakeitstopEnglish
    21·
    7 hours ago

    In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.

    He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”

    And he says that like it’s a bad thing. What an asshole.

    Not really a surprise, but worth pointing out anyway.

    • very_well_lost
      English
      12·
      6 hours ago

      Alito is basically a cartoon character at this point.

      Shouldn’t be long now before he rules that it’s constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5·
        6 hours ago

        Shouldn’t be long now before he rules that it’s constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.

        Trolly problem is constitutional, and the corporation in charge of the lever can’t be held liable as long as profits go up