Supreme Court: Government Must Get Warrant For Smartphone Location Data

Not open for further replies.


Apr 5, 2018
That's a start. Now hopefully SCOTUS can rule that forcing having to give up the password or encryption key violates the 5th as well.

Math Geek


they already ruled you can't be forced to give up passwords/pin numbers. which is why the gov has been reduced to paying hackers to get into phones.

however, they also ruled you COULD be forced to provide fingerprints/face scans and other biometric data to unlock devices!! so all them nice fancy fingerprint locks and face scans and so on can and will be used against you if needed. you will be FORCED to be scanned to unlock your device if that is how it is locked. something to keep in mind if you doing bad stuff and likely to draw the attention of the authorities.
Math is exactly correct. Law enforcement (in the US) must get a warrant for a telecom company to release privacy location tracking and call record info. The fact in this case that it was obtained without a warrant is really a failure of the telecom company as a first gate stop. All they had to say was "Not without a warrant." So whoever authorized that without a warrant, and whatever telecom company it was, they need to be included in said lawsuit.

I spent 10 years in the telecom business and know first hand what it takes to hand over user data to law enforcement. Also keep in mind this data is used for tracking missing persons. So effectively NOTHING has changed. All SCOTUS did was restate the 4th Amendment that it takes a warrant. Waste of time for SCOTUS. And regarding the fingerprint/unlock issue, if they have a warrant, it's just like entering your home and searching all of its contents: you lost ALL your rights to privacy by the signature of a judge.



Maybe it was a waste of time, but it seems our government needs reminding of the laws that are in place to keep it in check. I'm glad to see a SCOTUS that is actually willing to look at the laws within the Constitution and interpret them as they were meant to be, and not throw out some "was never envisioned" crap that meant to imply that the Constitutional law does not apply and give them, wrongfully, the right to ignore The Constitution and do what they want.


Jan 28, 2016
10TACLE: No, he means the 5th, which protects you from self-incrimination. Being forced to testify that your password is xxx would violate the 5th amendment, even if they have a warrant to satisfy the 4th. Of course if they find your password written on the back of an envelope in your home, then you lose.
Not open for further replies.