privacy in the cell site locations and that's exactly what the government argued in the case of mr carpenter that is all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days worth of cell site locations on average more than one hundred locations per day it was easy to see in the data mr carpenter had been here for stores that had been robbed and that was a key factor if not the main factor in his conviction but what does that mean a reason expect privacy supreme court here and a five four decision with justice roberts. joined by the four liberals say the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't real clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he expressly said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands and so the third party doctrine that you know people may or may not understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with the a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google and essentially we're allowing them with ou

mr. carpenter because we have five votes. but there is a lot of guidance going forward and i think it is guidance that will help litigants flesh out more clear arguments looking at federal statutory and state statutory protections for different kinds of data. looking at terms of service and contractual arrangements, looking at what kinds of rights people retain. i think you'll also provide companies to what kind of legislature protections are appropriate. statute thatderal requires customer consent before a telecom can sell or disclose their information which we thought provide enough of a justicer the theory and gorsuch discussed it a little and did not include other way, but those kinds of protections and other areas are going to be very important. last note on legislatures, i want to turn to you, laura and stephanie, i love thyselfmpt, doj, get to a legislature. let's do that. given the logic you find, laura, injustice gorsuch -- in view ofgorsuch 's how the showdown, what should be the rule? if someone calls you up, what

mr. carpenter's phone was in ohio, was not served by metro pcs, it was roaming on the same network. that was a request for shorter duration, a week's worth of data. the court's language in the case, all about needing to protect against deflection of pervasive data, aggregations of data that mapped out a person's movement over time and space. ane foot note the court-- in a foot note the court said we need not address a smaller period of data, smaller duration that won't need a warrant because here the very least, seven days, a weeks worth of data is enough to cross a line into violating privacy. i have no doubt in certain cases the government will argue that there is some shorter period, a day, five days, six hours, doesn't require a warrant. i think that looking to the reasoning of the court's opinion, one or few individual location points probably falls outside the logic. once we get to any aggregation of hours probably, it can start to chart a person's life, then we are into territory of needing protection with a warrant. the court said it wasn't deciding what the rules should be

mr. carpenter's counsel, as laura said, for forfeiting these arguments. we did raise them in our briefs. i think what was really going on is that justice gorsuch was comfortable enough sketching out the direction he wanted to go but didn't quite feel ready to put a period at end of the sentence, so said in this case, i need not definitively decide and that was fine for us, as counsel for mr. carpenter because we had five votes. but there is a lot of guidance going forward. i think that courts are -- it's guidance that will help litigants flesh out more clear and particular arguments looking at federal statutory and state statutory protections for different kinds of data to make an argument that those anchor a property-like right enough to invoke this kind of property-based theory. looking at terms of service and contractual arrangements, to look at what kinds of rights people retain and different kinds of data. i think it also provides an impetus to lawmakers and to companies to look again at what kinds of legislative protections are appropriate. it just

mr. carpenter because we have five votes.but there is a lot of guidance going forward and i think it is , guidance that will help litigants flesh out more clear arguments looking at federal statutory and state statutory protections for different kinds of data. to make an argument that those invoke this property-based theory. looking at terms of service and contractual arrangements, looking at what kinds of rights people retain. i think you'll also provide impetus for lawmakers and companies to what kind of legislature protections are appropriate. there is a federal statute that requires customer consent before a telecom can sell or disclose their information which we thought provide enough of a basis for the theory and justice gorsuch discussed it a little and did not conclude either way, but those kinds of protections and other areas are going to be very important. >> with that last note on legislatures, i want to turn to you, laura and stephanie, i love your prompt, doj, get thyself to a legislature. let's do that. thou is

mr. carpenter, because we had five votes. but there's a lot of guidance going forward, and i think that courts are, you know, it's guidance that will help litigants flesh out more clear and particular arguments looking at federal statutory and state statutory protections for different kinds of data to make an argument that those anchor a property-like right enough to invoke this kind of property-based theory, looking at terms of service and contractual arrangements, to look at what kinds of rights people retain in different kinds of data, and i think it also will provide some impetus to lawmakers and to companies to look again at what kinds of legislative protections are appropriate. it so happens that there is a federal statute that telecommunications act that requires customer consent before a telecom can sell or disclose their cell site location information. we thought provided enough of a basis to -- for this alternate theory and justice gorsuch discussed it a little and didn't conclude either way. those kind of protectio

privacy in the cell site locations and that's exactly what the government argued in the case of mr carpenter that is all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days worth of cell site locations on average more than one hundred locations per day it was easy to see in the data that mr carpenter had been near for stores that had been robbed and that was a key factor if not the main factor in his conviction but what does that mean reason expect privacy supreme court here and a five four decision with justice roberts. joined by the four liberals say the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't real clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he expressly said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands and so the third party doctrine that you know people mean may or may not understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with the a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google and essentially we're allowing them

privacy in the cell site locations and that's exactly what the government argued in the case of mr carpenter that is all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days worth of cell site locations on average more than one hundred locations per day it was easy to see in the data mr carpenter had been here for stores that had been robbed and that was a key factor if not the main factor in his conviction but what does that mean a reason expect privacy supreme court here and a five four decision with justice roberts. joined by the four liberals says the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't real clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he express lee said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands. so the third party doctrine you know people main near me don't understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with a a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider or whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google yes and essentially we're allowing them wit

mr. president, i'm tom clerken with signatory cma alliance. we pledge through the carpenters' union 50,000 upgraded traying opportunities. [applause] trading opportunities. >> i know the union well. [applause] >> mr. president, donny taylor, good to see you. [laughter] >> my friend. >> that's right. on behalf of the society for human resource management, we have 300,000 members, and more importantly, we touch the lives of 100 million workers every day. we're dedicated and committed to creating 127,000 new opportunities over the next five years for america. thank you. [applause] >> mr. president, my name is scott price, i'm pleased to represent ups where we are committing to 51,750 new roles through higher education and apprenticeships. >> fantastic, thank you. [applause] >> mr. president, i'm julie murphy from walmart -- >> walmart, wait million you hear this number. >> and we commit to train and develop over one million associates in the next five years. [applause] >> thank you very much. that is fantastic. thank you. so that's a big beginning. that's a much bigger beginning

mr. inal, it at a fastball count. >> len: 3-1. on bader. wiln walked carpenter on four.'d have him take a pitch. wilson's having trouble with the zone. younitter. >> len: 3-2. >> tom: that's a good take at the borderline strike. i would nottart carpenter at first base here. >> len: he's not going. there is ball four. so, the cardinals have two on with nobody out. bat here in the ninth. tg the om: bunt situation here with wong. based off that pitch break now >> len: so, brandon hyde will t. steve cishek when we come back. ♪ tap or click with ur mastercard. leto start something price. [music playing] (ceo) haven't been playing golf this year, i am sorry about that. (vo) progress is in the pursuit audi will cover your first month's lease paymen select models during summer of audi sales event. anif youg've got a life. you a swiffer en: top of the ninth, 3-3. time for our lg starters tonight. gant only went five. he didn't give up a run. montgomery wen six, allowed one. so the starters were good. and a lot has happened since they left. here's steve cishek. >> tom: here's anth

it was easy to see in the data that mr carpenter had been near four stores and had been robbed and that was the key factor if not the main factor in his conviction but what does that mean reason i expect privacy supreme court here in a five four decision with justice roberts joined by the four liberals said the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't real clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he expressed lee said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands. so the third party doctrine you know people main may or may not understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with the a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider or whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google yes and essentially we're allowing them with our whenever you have those terms and conditions the u.c.i. accept the right that you give them certain information so essentially the government is arguing that because we allowed that information to be given to private private corporation p