Breaking
RUДвижение на выезде из Ярославля в сторону Москвы перекрыто из-за атаки БПЛАCN強颱巴威逼近!氣象署:週四晚起北台灣轉雨,各地風雨不可小覷DERussland greift ukrainische Städte mit Drohnen und Raketen anKR증평군, 먹거리통합지원센터 본격 가동…지역 농업 경쟁력 강화CN云南蓝莓搭乘中老铁路“澜湄快线”出口东南亚CN屏東東港南平海岸傳溺水憾事 17歲高中生戲水失聯不治KR파주시, 드론 활용 말라리아 매개 모기 유충 방제 사업 추진FRBrésil : la fin d'un mythe, la Seleçao éliminée de la Coupe du MondeARالنرويج تحتفل بـ"المعجزة" بعد إقصاء البرازيل والتأهل لربع نهائي المونديالCN達美航空航班降落芝加哥時疑似遭煙火擊中,FAA已展開調查RUДвижение на выезде из Ярославля в сторону Москвы перекрыто из-за атаки БПЛАCN強颱巴威逼近!氣象署:週四晚起北台灣轉雨,各地風雨不可小覷DERussland greift ukrainische Städte mit Drohnen und Raketen anKR증평군, 먹거리통합지원센터 본격 가동…지역 농업 경쟁력 강화CN云南蓝莓搭乘中老铁路“澜湄快线”出口东南亚CN屏東東港南平海岸傳溺水憾事 17歲高中生戲水失聯不治KR파주시, 드론 활용 말라리아 매개 모기 유충 방제 사업 추진FRBrésil : la fin d'un mythe, la Seleçao éliminée de la Coupe du MondeARالنرويج تحتفل بـ"المعجزة" بعد إقصاء البرازيل والتأهل لربع نهائي المونديالCN達美航空航班降落芝加哥時疑似遭煙火擊中,FAA已展開調查
Newsgather
BackUS Supreme Court Rules Location History Protected Under Fourth Amendment
US Supreme Court Rules Location History Protected Under Fourth Amendment
NEWS
Ars Technica6d agoLaw4 min readUnited States

US Supreme Court Rules Location History Protected Under Fourth Amendment

6-3 Decision Requires Warrant for Accessing Third-Party Location Data

Quick Look

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that location history, including data from third-party providers like Google, is protected under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant for government access.

AI-generated summary

Why It Matters

The ruling addresses the privacy implications of location data collected by third-party services.

Font size

The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that location history, including data from third-party providers like Google, is protected under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant for government access. The 6-3 decision, with Justice Elena Kagan penning the majority opinion, found that the government needs a warrant and must show reasonable cause to access such data, drawing parallels to previous rulings on cellphone tracking.

The case centered around Okello Chatrie, who was tracked down using geofence warrants after an armed bank robbery. Chatrie had opted into sharing his location with Google. The majority argued that the widespread use of location-tracking services in modern life does not diminish the expectation of privacy, emphasizing that even short-term location data can reveal sensitive information about an individual.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that location data can expose details about personal associations and activities, particularly when visiting sensitive locations. The ruling was welcomed by privacy advocates, who saw it as a reaffirmation of privacy rights, though some noted it stopped short of declaring geofence warrants inherently unconstitutional.

The tech industry, via the Computer & Communications Industry Association, supported the decision, highlighting the clarification that privacy protections apply regardless of the technology involved.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued for an app-by-app approach, warning of upheaval in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. He suggested the ruling could unnecessarily complicate access to location data from various services. The majority, however, emphasized the need for a common standard to avoid future legal confusion and underscored that modern cellphone use inherently involves third-party location tracking.

The decision remands to the lower court the question of whether the search in Chatrie’s case was reasonable, to be decided under the clarified Fourth Amendment standards.

What to Watch

AI outlook — possibilities, not facts

  • Increased scrutiny of geofence warrants in lower courts.

    Likely · Within weeks

Open Questions

  • How will this ruling impact future surveillance practices?

Related Topics

This article was originally published by Ars Technica.

Related Stories

More on this topicFourth Amendment