Court Rules Against Privacy in Data Collection Case

[Maximus Gladius]

I’m so glad I live near the US where if I go looking for trouble, there’s much to be had but if I don’t, there’s nothing. (I don’t want to give away where I live)

Sponsored

 

[Minty JL]

The only problem with all of this, is the Fourth amendment doesn't apply. The Fourth amendment only applies to the government.

Thats an urban legend........ go tap an ex's communications and see what happens.

There is a way to opt out if one chooses too, i will post that information later. I was bored before bed last night, so I did some policy review of this program built into the Jeeps. I'm still digging into it.

EDIT, see attached

 

[whysoserious]

Thats an urban legend........ go tap an ex's communications and see what happens.

Not sure what the urban legend is?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Thats an urban legend........ go tap an ex's communications and see what happens.

There is a way to opt out if one chooses too, i will post that information later. I was bored before bed last night, so I did some policy review of this program built into the Jeeps. I'm still digging into it.

EDIT, see attached

Are you sure that was 4th Amendment or another law?
You likely aren't hitting the 4th, but the ECPA.
Title I of the ECPA, which is often referred to as the Wiretap Act, prohibits the intentional actual or attempted interception, use, disclosure, or "procure[ment] [of] any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication."

Federal law, not the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to capture the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given permission.



The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties.[66][67] In Smith, the Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.[63][68] However, under Carpenter v. United States (2018), individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding cell phone records even though they themselves turned over that information to "third parties" (i.e. the cell phone companies). Prior to the Carpenter ruling, law enforcement was able to retrieve cell site location information (CSLI) that included where a cell phone user had traveled over many months and with which other cell phone users they had associated. Carpenter v. United States serves as a landmark case because it slightly narrowed the Third Party Doctrine, thus requiring law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant before receiving CSLI records.[69] "In the 5-4 [Carpenter] decision, the Court ruled 'narrowly' in favor of privacy, finding the government had constitutionally violated Mr. Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy by acquiring this private information without a warrant."

 

[whysoserious]

Are you sure that was 4th Amendment or another law?
You likely aren't hitting the 4th, but the ECPA.
Title I of the ECPA, which is often referred to as the Wiretap Act, prohibits the intentional actual or attempted interception, use, disclosure, or "procure[ment] [of] any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication."

Federal law, not the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to capture the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given permission.



The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties.[66][67] In Smith, the Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.[63][68] However, under Carpenter v. United States (2018), individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding cell phone records even though they themselves turned over that information to "third parties" (i.e. the cell phone companies). Prior to the Carpenter ruling, law enforcement was able to retrieve cell site location information (CSLI) that included where a cell phone user had traveled over many months and with which other cell phone users they had associated. Carpenter v. United States serves as a landmark case because it slightly narrowed the Third Party Doctrine, thus requiring law enforcement to first obtain a search warrant before receiving CSLI records.[69] "In the 5-4 [Carpenter] decision, the Court ruled 'narrowly' in favor of privacy, finding the government had constitutionally violated Mr. Carpenter's reasonable expectation of privacy by acquiring this private information without a warrant."

It's most certainly another law. Most (if not all) states have criminal statutes addressing accessing someone's personal info without permission/consent. Unless someone or some entity is acting on behalf of the government, the 4th isn't even a consideration.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

It's most certainly another law. Most (if not all) states have criminal statutes addressing accessing someone's personal info without permission/consent. Unless someone or some entity is acting on behalf of the government, the 4th isn't even a consideration.

That's been my finding after reading about a couple of SCOTUS cases related to such.
Government agency or person/persons/organization working on behalf of government.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Now the question arises - why would one want to "tap their ex's phone" hmmmmmmmmmm.
Maybe I was just lucky and have no idea - my ex and I are friends, heck a few months after our divorce, she was even giving dating advice (and said she liked my now wife) We even hung out together at a farmer's market last summer.

 

[whysoserious]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Now the question arises - why would one want to "tap their ex's phone" hmmmmmmmmmm.
Maybe I was just lucky and have no idea - my ex and I are friends, heck a few months after our divorce, she was even giving dating advice (and said she liked my now wife) We even hung out together at a farmer's market last summer.

I had an ex steal many thousands of dollars of personal property from me. I sued her, but didn't win much. A recorded phone call of her admitting guilt would've been fantastic in court.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...

The Shadow knows.........

I had an ex steal many thousands of dollars of personal property from me. I sued her, but didn't win much. A recorded phone call of her admitting guilt would've been fantastic in court.

There wasn't much of a problem in my case - we didn't own squat, almost nothing worth either of us "stealing". The car was about it - but then since she was taking primary custodial care of the kids, her having a station wagon made much more sense than a 2 door truck. (and I needed a truck)
We made a list of the contents of the house, made 2 copies, and each of us went through that list and checked the things we wanted. There were only two things both of us checked, and we settled that well enough.
She had inherited the farm and farmstead from her grandmother - so none of that was "up for grabs" - law said that's hers, period. She did split off the homestead from the rest of the ground and let me keep the house and buildings - but they weren't worth squat. In fact, when I later moved away, the buildings were all bulldozed.
It makes it so very simple when you have nothing - there's nothing to fuss over!
So, I started a new life with a new wife and 0, nothing but my Comanche and some personal items.

 

[Bandolero]

Thats an urban legend........ go tap an ex's communications and see what happens.

There is a way to opt out if one chooses too, i will post that information later. I was bored before bed last night, so I did some policy review of this program built into the Jeeps. I'm still digging into it.

EDIT, see attached

I had asked about deactivating the tracking in another post. It seems like the uconnect radio is the primary culprit in collecting and transmitting data. If one were to disconnect the radio I wonder if it would manually disable the vehicles ability to transmit your personal information

 

[ShadowsPapa]

If one were to disconnect the radio I wonder if it would manually disable the vehicles ability to transmit your personal information

And possibly some other functionality as well?

 

[Teqsand]

Thats an urban legend........ go tap an ex's communications and see what happens.

There is a way to opt out if one chooses too, i will post that information later. I was bored before bed last night, so I did some policy review of this program built into the Jeeps. I'm still digging into it.

EDIT, see attached

Simplified: either let us record your shit, or you will have to give up all your connectivity.....

 

[Teqsand]

No one was harmed by Trump but hte judge sure didn't see it that was when he fined him half a billion dollars

 

[Lunentucker]

Redacted

You probably don't want to say that here.

Sponsored