Re: [ietf-privacy] Fwd: [Internet Policy] How a Radio Shack Robbery Could Spur a New Era in Digital Privacy

"John Levine" <> Mon, 27 November 2017 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E45F12700F for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:41:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgHjLptXTN5j for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:41:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD83120721 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2015 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2017 20:41:55 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 27 Nov 2017 20:41:55 -0000
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:41:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20171127204133.17312.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] Fwd: [Internet Policy] How a Radio Shack Robbery Could Spur a New Era in Digital Privacy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:41:58 -0000

In article <> you write:
>Interesting article, cross-posted from ISOC Public Policy list

Carpenter is an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with the

It's quite fact specific to mobile phones, which by their nature
transmit a running history of their location to the towers which
mobile phone companies log.  This was true even in AMPS days, at least
the tower data part if not the logging.

The question presented is whether the cops need a warrant from a judge
to get access to those logs or just a subpoena from law enforcement or
from a lawyer.  The argument on one side is that it's a great deal of
rather personal information, e.g., it told them whether Carpenter went
to church each Sunday and when he spent the night at someone's house
other than his own.  The argument on the other is that it's the same
info they'd get if they had a cop tail the guy.  (You don't have to
tell me that those arguments are not equally persuasive, but that's
what they are.)

Lots of details here:

Here's the usually reasonable Orin Kerr making the just like a tail argument: