The Supreme Court showed unanimity in its discomfort with electronically tracking people without a warrant in its GPS tracking decision in January. But as conveyed by the justices’ written opinions, the splintered reasoning behind rebuking the practice of placing a geo-tracking device on someone’s car without a warrant laid bare the disconnect between how far our technology has come and the outdated privacy protection laws that are struggling to keep pace.
At issue is the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act. Different jurisdictions have issued conflicting rulings about how to handle location-based data.
Cell phone data grabbing, GPS tracking, “national security letters”. Law enforcement argues that accountability via taping violates officers rights to privacy. ACLU disagrees.
The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act, sponsored by Reps. … if a grand jury prosecutor could subpoena historical GPS data in an investigation, …