• ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This is the question the entire article avoids.

    The article is written as if to try and get you to avoid asking it too.

    “Why was no warrant required for the data?” “Why are police allowed to just ask for your personal info without a warrant”

    What’s the point of warrants if they’re no longer needed? Like, warrants are supposed to be a crucial check on police powers, and here we are rendering them pointless.

    I weep for the future.

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      What’s the point of warrants if they’re boo longer needed?

      If you give the police permission to conduct a search, they do not need a warrant.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That set it up so that the material handed over was in Verizon’s possession (business records) and Verizon gave permission. The law is written so that they need a warrant for an actual wiretap (call contents) but not the metadata. Of course metadata is all you need to stalk the person, so that should need a warrant too.

          It’s fairly easy to avoid giving your cellular carrier your address (get the bills sent to a PO box} or even your name (buy a prepaid phone with cash). But it’s harder to keep your call records or geolocation info away from them. :(