Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Carpenter v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Carpenter v. United States on November 29, 2017. This case has potentially explosive implications for law enforcement surveillance, Fourth Amendment rights, and modern communications technology.

In the Carpenter case, suspects were arrested and convicted for a series of store robberies in Detroit. The government used 127 days of cell site location information to indicate that the suspects were in the vicinity of the victimized stores when the robberies occurred. This information was obtained without a warrant under the third-party doctrine, which finds no expectation of privacy in information, like telephone numbers dialed, that is communicated to a third party.

Listen to the full oral argument here: Carpenter v. United States.

Center Scholar Jordan A. Brunner recently wrote about this case and its potential impact on the Internet of Things (IoT). With the proliferation of IoT devices, which can catalog and broadcast a wide range of personal information, these devices become extremely attractive targets for surveillance. As Brunner notes, widespread use of IoT devices could “so blur the distinction between online and offline activity that such a difference may cease to exist.”

It’s a great time to reread his thoughts here: Carpenter v. United States: Surveillance in the Connected Age.