{"id":9114,"date":"2013-07-23T05:20:44","date_gmt":"2013-07-23T05:20:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-07-23T05:20:44","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9114","title":{"rendered":"eff.org: State Courts Join State Lawmakers in Demanding Warrants for Location Information"},"content":{"rendered":"

eff.org: State Courts Join State Lawmakers in Demanding Warrants for Location Information<\/a> by Hanni Fakhoury:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We’ve all heard a lot in the last month about the government’s flimsy excuse for the NSA’s massive collection of telephone and Internet metadata: that this sensitive information is somehow just “business records” that don’t require a warrant for government access. That same argument has been used by the government to also justify the warrantless collection of cell site data — the mobile company’s record of which tower your phone connects to — despite the fact that these records can reveal enormous amounts of information about where you go and with whom.<\/p>\n

Thankfully, we’re seeing some significant strides to put this dangerous idea to rest.<\/p>\n

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled this week that under the state’s constitution police need a search warrant before tracking a person’s location through their cell phone. This follows on the heels of a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in June that found the state’s constitution prohibited extensive GPS monitoring of an individual — regardless of whether they are the driver or passenger of a car — unless police obtained a search warrant. State legislatures are acting too; Montana recently became the first state to require police get a search warrant by statute before tracking a person’s location (California had a chance to be the first state but Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the location privacy bill we sponsored last year). Massachusetts is considering similar legislation, and we submitted a support letter (PDF) encouraging them to do so. Maine recently passed a similar bill after the legislature overrode the governor’s veto. And the New York Times reports over a dozen states are considering various electronic privacy bills. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}