ShareThis Page

Cellphone location tracking: Get a warrant!

| Friday, Aug. 18, 2017, 11:00 p.m.
Sean Stipp | Trib Total Media

The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity, indeed, an obligation, to reinforce citizens' Fourth Amendment right to privacy this fall in a case concerning the government's use of cellphone-tracking technology.

At issue is an appeal by Timothy Carpenter, convicted in a string of store robberies based on “cell site location information” obtained by authorities from his wireless carrier. More than a dozen tech companies, including Verizon, Microsoft and Google, have filed a 44-page amicus brief, urging the justices to rule that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure requires police to obtain warrants before demanding cellphone-location data. This commonsense expectation already is upheld in two similar cases.

In one, the high court ruled that GPS tracking counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment. In the other, the justices determined that authorities cannot browse suspects' cellphones without getting warrants.

Government lawyers have argued that the business records in question belong to the companies, not the consumers. But it is, nevertheless, the customers' privacy that's at stake.

Never mind the chilling effect that such warrantless snooping would have on news reporters in tracking their whereabouts and with whom they meet.

The digital age did not usher in an unconstitutional police state. And, once again, our admonition in these cases bears repeating: Get a warrant!

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.