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

Wendy Seltzer <> Mon, 27 November 2017 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9040129404 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:27 -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 C08U3oajsFhJ for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E293120724 for <>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:26 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20171127204133.17312.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Wendy Seltzer <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:54:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171127204133.17312.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:55:28 -0000

On 11/27/2017 03:41 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.

The case itself is unrelated to the Internet, but precedent it sets
regarding the continued viability of or limits on the "third party
doctrine" -- the doctrine that because the individual gave data to a
third party, law enforcement can request it from that third party rather
without a warrant -- could carry over to Internet tracking.


> 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:
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-privacy mailing list

Wendy Seltzer -- +1 617.863.0613
Strategy Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University