In article <396e100a-55ba-4155-a29e-92d452a45...@gmail.com> you write: >Interesting article, cross-posted from ISOC Public Policy list
Carpenter is an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with the Internet. It's quite fact specific to mobile phones, which by their nature transmit a running history of their location to the towers which mobile phone companies log. This was true even in AMPS days, at least the tower data part if not the logging. The question presented is whether the cops need a warrant from a judge to get access to those logs or just a subpoena from law enforcement or from a lawyer. The argument on one side is that it's a great deal of rather personal information, e.g., it told them whether Carpenter went to church each Sunday and when he spent the night at someone's house other than his own. The argument on the other is that it's the same info they'd get if they had a cop tail the guy. (You don't have to tell me that those arguments are not equally persuasive, but that's what they are.) Lots of details here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carpenter-v-united-states-2 Here's the usually reasonable Orin Kerr making the just like a tail argument: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-carpenter-eyewitness-rule/ R's, John _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
