OVERNIGHT TECH: Court to hear arguments in cellphone tracking case. In August, the 6th Circuit sided with prosecutors, ruling that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy for their cellphones' location data. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in United States v. Jones that planting a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment. U.S. delegation to telecommunications conference forms: The United States delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) had its first meeting on Monday. The delegates will attend a conference in Dubai to discuss possible changes to the International Telecommunication Union's authority over the Internet. American officials are opposed to efforts that would give the international body more control over the Internet.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski issued a statement: “Today, the State Department officially formed the United States delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Gen. When GPS Tracking Violates Privacy Rights. Supreme Court Relies on Kerr’s Theory of Fourth Amendment and Property. Mobile Experts Disagree on Who Should Protect Privacy. Users of mobile apps need more information about the ways those apps use their personal information, a group of experts agreed Thursday, but they didn't agree on who is most responsible for protecting user privacy.
Apple and Google can better police their app marketplaces, although both companies have several good privacy protections, said Todd Moore, founder of app vendor TMSoft, during a discussion on mobile app privacy at the State of the Mobile Net conference in Washington, D.C. The operators of the iPhone and Android app marketplaces are in the best position to enforce privacy controls and set rules limiting the amount of information apps can collect, he said. One app marketplace required Moore's sound app to have access to information about whether the phone was being used for a voice call, so that the app could turn off sounds during a call. Some TMSoft customers have questioned why the app wants that access, Moore said. "I don't want that level of access," he added.
When Machines are Watching: How Warrantless Use of GPS Surveillance Technology Violates the Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Searches by Priscilla Smith, Nabiha Syed, David Thaw, Albert Wong. Federal and state law enforcement officials throughout the nation are currently using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for automated, prolonged surveillance without obtaining warrants. As a result, cases are proliferating in which criminal defendants are challenging law enforcement’s warrantless uses of GPS surveillance technology, and courts are looking for direction from the Supreme Court. Most recently, a split has emerged between the Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue. In United States v. Pineda-Moreno, the Ninth Circuit relied on United States v.
The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment doctrine, including its cases evaluating new surveillance technologies, has always been informed by one of the Amendment’s animating principles: its mandate to prevent abuse of police power. This Essay is organized in three Parts. Our interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is consistent with the concerns underlying past Supreme Court decisions.