Supreme Court Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Updates Privacy Laws

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws

I might have to reread this and wash my eyeballs because I don't believe what I'm reading.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant,

The NSA can!..

That is no victory for privacy there.

Some might think it is, but it ain't.

a reply to: awakehuman

I believe it. The Supreme Court was intended to be the final constitutional check on matters and to be the most independent. That said, this ruling is in regards to police. How it applies to intelligence agencies, I do not know.** However, it is a good step in the right direction for protecting digital privacy. Hopefully it continues. Even if they did put more checks to protect privacy though, there is still the issue of the "Five Eyes". GCHQ's data collection was infinitely higher than the US's despite significant population differences and I sometimes wonder if it's because the UK and US are working a loophole to collect data on each others' citizens.

**I think the wording of the ruling basically leads this ruling to be separate to intelligence agency gathering because those have a national security interest.

originally posted by: neo96

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant,

The NSA can!..

That is no victory for privacy there.

Some might think it is, but it ain't.

I tend to agree there is no NSA watch dog, and the cops have no problems just flat out killing people lately for little or nothing, I don't think capturing your cell info is going to matter. The only one that will protect you is you.

a reply to: neo96

The NSA and Law Enforcement do not perform the same functions, so trying to compare the 2 is a bit like comparing elephant poo to kryptonite.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if an elephant was grazing where a meteor from krypton fell...

uh oh...I guess I shouldn't have made that last whiskey sour.


Good call by the Court.

a reply to: Phage

We have then have the poo and kryptonite side by side and we could easily see there is no comparison between the 2.

I'll take a whiskey and spill a little in the glass.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: neo96

The NSA and Law Enforcement do not perform the same functions, so trying to compare the 2 is a bit like comparing elephant poo to kryptonite.

I have to agree.

As much as Im not a fan of NSA storing all my data, currently the NSA are not in the business of watching you to see if you brought a gram of pot off SR or if your taxes are not 100% in order ect


Now that could one day change hence why im not comfortable with all this data storing, just cause it not being abused now doesn't mean it will always remain that way. All it will take is one extreme neo con president from the bible belt wanting to super ignite the war on drugs and everything else or a extreme left wing socialist who wants to weed out un political correct thinking and all of sudden you got police knocking at the door for that racist joke you friend emailed you or that gram pot you admitted to smoking once a few years back in high school.


But for now the commons crimes are out side the NSA jurisdiction for now im guessing. Id on ly be worried of the NSA if your a terroist or a leader of a wanted organized crime organization.

The problem is when that changes.

a reply to: crazyewok

The NSA is not a law enforcement agency so their "jurisdiction" is non existent. The manner in which they collect information would never meet constitutional scrutiny nor Supreme Court rulings, even more so now with the last issues the state / federal judicial systems have been ruling in terms of evidence / electronic evidence collection.

I have no issues with the government creating agencies to spy on foreign national abroad in order to protect the US. I have major issues with intelligence agencies performing a domestic law enforcement function - surveillance.

Secondly the manner in which "national security" is being used in order to shield information and sources from the accused is extremely disturbing and must be stopped.

How can justice served in secret be justice?

At least the Supreme Court seems to be opening their eyes and ears.

Makes no difference since the word "terrorism" means they can do whatever they like, whenever they like.

originally posted by: Sharted
Makes no difference since the word "terrorism" means they can do whatever they like, whenever they like.

Not true since the definition of terrorism has been defined by the courts.