47
47
Sep 16, 2014
09/14
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 47
favorite 0
quote 0
before when we had land lines you couldn't tell where michael lee smith went during the day.ow we have cell phones. tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around can now pinpoint where we go. so it is different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. so i would say that even the telephony records are different from before in terms of the privacy interests. and beyond this, the type of information that we now digitally house with third parties is qualitatively different. on the icloud, the amount of information we put up about our private lives, our personal correspondence, our private dealings with others, the home -- the concept of inside the home, the filing cabinet is sacrosanct and you need a warrant to go into that filing cabinet. just because we keep the contents of that filing cabinet on our pocket, this is what this recent case, the riley case, was about, whether or not you have this privacy interest in the cell phone when the police arrest you or whether you need a warrant. the court sai
before when we had land lines you couldn't tell where michael lee smith went during the day.ow we have cell phones. tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around can now pinpoint where we go. so it is different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. so i would say that even the telephony records are different from before in terms of the privacy interests. and beyond this, the type of information that we now...
55
55
Sep 15, 2014
09/14
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 55
favorite 0
quote 0
before when it land lines you couldn't help where michael lee smith went during the day. now with cell phones and so the tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around cannot pin point where we go. it's different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. i was the even their different from before in terms of the privacy interest. beyond this the type of information we now digitally hold with third parties is different to an icon the amount of information we put out about our private lives, our personal correspondence, our private dealings with others, the home, the concept of inside the privileges of the home, the filing cabinet is sacrosanct and needed a war to go into the filing cabinet. just because we keep the contents of that filing cabinet on her pocket, that's what this recent case was about whether he had his privacy interest in the sofa with a police arrest you or whether they need a work. the court said no, you need a board. similarly in the intelligence community the idea that just be
before when it land lines you couldn't help where michael lee smith went during the day. now with cell phones and so the tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around cannot pin point where we go. it's different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. i was the even their different from before in terms of the privacy interest. beyond this the type of information we now digitally hold with third parties is different...
41
41
Sep 22, 2014
09/14
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 41
favorite 0
quote 0
before when we had land lines you couldn't tell where michael lee smith went during the day. now we have cell phones. tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around can now pinpoint where we go. so it is different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. so i would say that even the telephony records are different from before in terms of the privacy interests. and beyond this, the type of information that we now digitally house with third parties is qualitatively different. on the icloud, the amount of information we put up about our private lives, our personal correspondence, our private dealings with others, the home -- the concept of inside the home, the filing cabinet is sacrosanct and you need a warrant to go into that filing cabinet. just because we keep the contents of that filing cabinet on our pocket, this is what this recent case, the riley case, was about, whether or not you have this privacy interest in the cell phone when the police arrest you or whether you need a warrant. the court s
before when we had land lines you couldn't tell where michael lee smith went during the day. now we have cell phones. tracking technologies that allow us to attach to each cell phone tower as we move around can now pinpoint where we go. so it is different kinds of information that one can get through these same third party records. so i would say that even the telephony records are different from before in terms of the privacy interests. and beyond this, the type of information that we now...
66
66
Sep 22, 2014
09/14
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 66
favorite 0
quote 0
michael smith called her on the telephone. they used this information to get a warrant, went into his house and found a phone book dog eared to her number. so michael lee smith had no privacy purposes in the numbers he dialed from his phone. it was in the telephone company's purview. that gave birth to the third party data in the law. we're just recording this information that the telephone company has. which includes not just dials received, but also chunk identifier information. and this information has been collected 24/7, 60-60 for years. so what is wrong? privacy interests are significantly different. there are tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people potentially impacted. their location information and the ubiquitous information in long term nature make this qualitatively different. now, the court has decided in a number of cases that under either approach, whether one of the justice's traditional or whether one goes to the higher bar of katz, that under either approach, this is unconstitutional. on the trespass side, this is a general warant. this is exactly what gave birth. england was seen as protecting the rights of englishmen. genera
michael smith called her on the telephone. they used this information to get a warrant, went into his house and found a phone book dog eared to her number. so michael lee smith had no privacy purposes in the numbers he dialed from his phone. it was in the telephone company's purview. that gave birth to the third party data in the law. we're just recording this information that the telephone company has. which includes not just dials received, but also chunk identifier information. and this...
64
64
Sep 12, 2014
09/14
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 64
favorite 0
quote 0
so the supreme court says michael lee smith had no privacy interests in the purposes of the fourth amendment because it was in the telephone company's purview. that gave rise to third-party doctrine in the law. we're just recording this information that the telephone company has, which includes not just numbers dialled and numbers trespasser doctrine and cat doctrine, under either approach, this is intuitiunconstitutional. on the trespass side, this is a general warrant. this is exactly what gave birth in many ways to the revolution. in england, it was seen as protecting the rights of englishmen against warrants. they could go into people's homes and look for evidence of possible criminal activity. james argued that this was the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the use of general warrants. john adams, who was at the argument later said, liberty was born. we will not accept general warrants. the virginia declaration of rights included a prohibition on general warrants. virginia and new york and a number of states as a condition of signing the u.s. constitution, said there must be a condit
so the supreme court says michael lee smith had no privacy interests in the purposes of the fourth amendment because it was in the telephone company's purview. that gave rise to third-party doctrine in the law. we're just recording this information that the telephone company has, which includes not just numbers dialled and numbers trespasser doctrine and cat doctrine, under either approach, this is intuitiunconstitutional. on the trespass side, this is a general warrant. this is exactly what...