| | |
|
EveShabtoFirstPaper 12 - 03 May 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Sotomayor recognized that secrecy may not be a prerequisite for privacy: just because society may disclose certain information to a third party for limited purpose, does not mean that society does not also expect the information to remain private. CSLI is a prime example of this idea. First of all, cell phone users do not voluntarily share CSLI. The data is automatically generated without the user taking any affirmative action and many users have no idea CSLI is generated, let alone stored. However, if users are aware the the data is collected, they reasonably expect that it is used to facilitate cell service and not to generate a comprehensive record of their location, to be shared with law enforcement without any probable cause.
...But It Does. Is there a Possible Statutory Solution?
Notes
:
| |
>
> | CONFLICT original 10:
As the Fourth Amendment and third party doctrine stand, CSLI does not have the protection it deserves. Instead, Congress should update the SCA or pass entirely new legislation that protects CSLI with a warrant requirement. There are currently nine states that have passed state laws requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing historical CSLI which indicates there is an appetite for such legislation -- but unfortunately, probably not in our federal Congress. Congress recently passed a resolution to allow ISPs to sell internet-users' browsing history without users consent or knowledge. How did this happen? The telecommunications industry "actively lobbied Congress to roll back broadband privacy protections passed by the FCC". Cell phone service providers are unlikely going to relinquish control over user cell site location information.
CONFLICT version 11:
Notes
:
,:
| | | As the Fourth Amendment and third party doctrine stand, CSLI does not have the protection it deserves. Instead, Congress should update the SCA or pass entirely new legislation that protects CSLI with a warrant requirement. There are currently nine states that have passed state laws requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing historical CSLI which indicates there is an appetite for such legislation -- but unfortunately, probably not in our federal Congress. Congress recently passed a resolution to allow ISPs to sell internet-users' browsing history without users consent or knowledge. How did this happen? The telecommunications industry "actively lobbied Congress to roll back broadband privacy protections passed by the FCC". Cell phone service providers are unlikely going to relinquish control over user cell site location information.
Notes
:
| |
>
> | CONFLICT version new:
As the Fourth Amendment and third party doctrine stand, CSLI does not have the protection it deserves. Instead, Congress should update the SCA or pass entirely new legislation that protects CSLI with a warrant requirement. There are currently nine states that have passed state laws requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing historical CSLI which indicates there is an appetite for such legislation -- but unfortunately, probably not in our federal Congress. Congress recently passed a resolution to allow ISPs to sell internet-users' browsing history without users consent or knowledge. How did this happen? The telecommunications industry "actively lobbied Congress to roll back broadband privacy protections passed by the FCC". Cell phone service providers are unlikely going to relinquish control over user cell site location information.
CONFLICT end
Notes
:
| | |
References |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |