For all of us, and not only for criminal suspects, the days when being tracked is the exception rather than the rule are drawing to a close. To the extent that our location on January 10, 2014—or, for that matter, on January 10, 2012—remains private, it is not because the records to remove that privacy do not exist, but only because no one cares sufficiently to access them. Inevitably and inexorably, we are building an infrastructure that enables location surveillance decisions to be made retroactively, reducing the need to determine in advance who should be surveilled.

In the future, therefore, the issue of before-the-fact location-tracking warrants will be largely irrelevant. All of the necessary data will be collected automatically. The important privacy questions will instead concern the protections that apply to that data: Who can see it? And under what circumstances?

The government certainly needs the ability to access archived information about the movements of a person credibly believed to be planning, for example, a terrorist attack. But what about juveniles suspected of petty crimes? What types of location data should be available to parents engaged in a child custody battle? Or former business partners embroiled in a legal dispute?

The Supreme Court has not yet addressed these questions. But, inevitably, it will. And the answers, far more than the ruling in United States v. Jones, will help define the meaning of privacy in 21st-century America.

Image by Thomas Hawk on Flickr

6 Comments

1. 1. MadScientist72 03:29 PM 1/25/12

   Big Brother is watching you! So are Little Sister, Aunt Bea, Cousin It, the creepy guy down the street and your old college roomate!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Dredd 04:05 PM 1/25/12

   The case was about whether or not evidence illegally gained without a warrant was admissible as evidence.
   
   Whether they stop doing it on not will not change the fact that any evidence gained illegally can't be used.
   
   If they choose to waste taxpayer dollars spinning their wheels, that won't last long either.
   
   http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/01/exceptional-american-propaganda.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Whammer2 10:16 PM 1/25/12

   Yes, and it's far more than needing to get a warrant to "use" the information.
   Just consider. You're a traffic policeman. One of the things you can access is a camera placed at an intersection near your house to monitor traffic.
   Now you suspect your wife may be having an affair with someone. If this guy is visiting your house while you are at work, he is going to be passing by that very camera. Since it is your job to monitor the traffic on that intersection...no one will stop you from watching that intersection will they?
   Don't worry, you don't NEED a warrant.
   How long do you think, if the technology is available, it will take someone to think of something similar?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. marybrown 07:37 AM 5/12/12

   What a great post! I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for sharing this valuable information with us. I have bookmarked this site and will be sure to check for updates. Keep up the good work! <a href="http://www.waferscale.com/exede-satellite-internet">exede broadband</a>

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. marybrown 07:40 AM 5/12/12

   What a great post! I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for sharing this valuable information with us. I have bookmarked this site and will be sure to check for updates. Keep up the good work! http://www.waferscale.com/exede-satellite-internet

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. marybrown 03:11 PM 5/12/12

   I wonder why other professionals don’t notice your website much m glad I found this.! http://www.waferscale.com/exede-satellite-internet

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this