Last month the New Jersey Supreme Court
ruled that police generally need a warrant to obtain
information about the locations of cellphone users. Last week the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
said just the opposite.
The first decision was based on Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, while the second was based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But those provisions are virtually identical, banning "unreasonable searches and seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." The crucial difference between the two decisions is the "third party doctrine," an increasingly alarming menace to privacy.
Since the early 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that people have no constitutional right to privacy with respect to information they voluntarily share with others. New Jersey's courts have always rejected this principle, recognizing that people who disclose information for particular purposes do not thereby surrender all expectations of privacy.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/07/your-phone-is-a-pocket-rat
The first decision was based on Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, while the second was based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But those provisions are virtually identical, banning "unreasonable searches and seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." The crucial difference between the two decisions is the "third party doctrine," an increasingly alarming menace to privacy.
Since the early 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that people have no constitutional right to privacy with respect to information they voluntarily share with others. New Jersey's courts have always rejected this principle, recognizing that people who disclose information for particular purposes do not thereby surrender all expectations of privacy.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/07/your-phone-is-a-pocket-rat
No comments:
Post a Comment