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

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 27 November 2017 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06049129406 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L624Em5UCTwT for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABA13120724 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c123so23901696qkf.7 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jZ5eUgy/xVUJaK3cqtNRJ0bd+S8bhnlCiZJJMTjwKyo=; b=oJELRZnF3/TdXt3pV5wwBM+eAMKYQUqyJcrNgaRUfl19NfsCu602U8Ur5JIwX3Am4i OdsN99nHFTWXZAg43G6JriCHvzg9lbbWF2MHEkNfs9slHCXyWSYGF+ukj9h5K+uJFxz3 cZgOMGC7emCePcQzV6BBN0LVFGnEXeFnBdKjOzteqs8i8EKYgaxJV9/9GfCY2DDD3IH0 lGUxsO4JpSg8y9Lc3eSUfplGZC+3QxMA0aNgT6T6ENBQ/99dGoSFDMo3rQBGc+1iuytJ dvgcQDzgKZMMXhbNkkAgIP1a0+gTaiAkEh/Y8zEaeI7bJGaZqno/5/pRpz9FbPeCjTrh WhrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jZ5eUgy/xVUJaK3cqtNRJ0bd+S8bhnlCiZJJMTjwKyo=; b=cHAhdU1E1GahKEzwj1O6y7VNFwgd/AKoMIJ3qBZhyL+hcynjUgPXchsujidQXHZy2M hWqCp/8H5h6O3uOGCxNVsfYiHQcgVOfXqsd2Bixl1Ttj2tDlsb+NfGqXirYBMOpiZJUO iRT55zaZG+SiDxYRr4sTXHp3RY0jw54/JPNTCBP7TOrLD6EJTCtlcwAvDZnBStckynss AIB6RhGZwguj2TbY2oSvq4EXL+749UWoTlMEqd8W25QeyQxM4UtslDJvOD28WlYmzQN0 o2MQG8mVre6d2iQRxhT5MZ/K+vn9mBndR5cwlemKNw9gQ+8UtBPNsapwEe9l83iWEAMy Qw8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7geSF0bTxixTPdE3aNOqLVuQdBcOG+lF6H015ZXrimdYG1GgcL 2+tKo4Q/8LY/Pzap6wMCbCyhJztoV+64Crbn3as=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYNE45hVjFm2LaybFLqe/8EQ3PoVaShn3L4Lm09Og3EoYQlHEW7KOomaVwLtaliIsZJyR6yT7kevjAfNYr91yc=
X-Received: by with SMTP id m17mr62146782qke.304.1511816011421; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20171127204133.17312.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <> <20171127204133.17312.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:53:01 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fb004539d03055efd18c7"
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 20:53:35 -0000

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Levine <> wrote:

> 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
> Internet.
> 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:

is the link from within that set that I think identifies the right
precedent quickest.  Given the judgement that adding a GPS device was a
"tiny constable", I don't see how getting the data from an existing GPS
device won't be judged by the same standard.

Of course, the make up of the court has changed.  We'll see if that shifts
things, I guess.


> Here's the usually reasonable Orin Kerr making the just like a tail
> argument:
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-privacy mailing list