TYT: Court Rules Cell Phone Data Isn’t Yours

[blackspade]

Wow.

One of the things that struck me was at the 1:00 mark.
This ruling makes data that you send the property of the carrier.
By extension, that means that all data, documents, pictures, etc, are no longer the property of their creators.
What a fucking legal mess.

This is like your mail becoming property of the USPS even after it's delivered.

[tecelote]

1. We're no longer citizens.

We're subjects to an oligarchy. We're basically owned.

[Cryptoad]

2. No more Secrets for anybody,,,,,,,let the light shine!

[demwing]

3. The ruling seems to focus on "location data"

not at all touching on texts, photos, or any creative output. I think TYT has jumped the gun here.

[Dustlawyer]

4. If they are right about the Ruling on the issue of the phone company owning the information

and pictures it is a problem. What's to stop Verizon from using/selling your pictures? How would you react to seeing pictures you took of your family vacation in a series of Internet stock photos? What about the short video of you and your wife/husband having sex being sold by your phone company to porn sites?
I hope you are right and it doesn't say what TYT says it does.

[glowing]

5. Yes, but if you don't "own" your device, then essentially, anything else to do with that phone is

subject to "ownership" by the cell phone company. Say a case comes about regarding a reprehensible human being who is a pedophile. Busting into the phone for picture evidence, if allowed by the cell phone company, wouldn't violate someone's rights. And quite honestly, I could see a case of judicial review actually using a case like this where many people would want the pedophile locked up, to make a similar ruling based on this case as precedent, to say that the phone isn't "owned" by an individual, so anything on the phone is not actually subject to be used as the company wishes it to be used....

[demwing]

6. Read the Slate article that spurred the TYT report

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/06/blow_to_cellphone_privacy_flip_flop_court_case_says_data_belongs_to_your.html

Particularly this:

"Instead, the reversal of that ruling comes as a blow to privacy advocates seeking more protections for mobile devices. The same court’s review by a larger panel of judges—what’s known as an en banc ruling—now reasserts the third-party doctrine to insist that Davis had no reasonable expectation of privacy for his cellphone records. “Davis can assert neither ownership nor possession of the third-party’s business records he sought to suppress,” the court’s decision reads. “Instead, those cell tower records were created by MetroPCS, stored on its own premises, and subject to its control."

Even so, the Davis ruling shouldn’t be read as justifying cellphone location tracking so much as delaying the resolution of the question, says University of San Francisco law professor Freiwald. She points out that the court was careful to narrow its ruling. The judges note that Davis used an older cellphone, which allowed only which cell tower he connected to at a given time to be tracked; he wasn’t tracked in real time, no location data was associated with his text messages, and the tracking lacked the precision of GPS or Wi-Fi–based location surveillance. “Even in an urban area, MetroPCS’s records do not show, and the examiner cannot pinpoint, the location of the cell user,” the ruling reads. “Ironically, Davis was using old technology and not the new technology of a smartphone equipped with a GPS real-time, precise tracking device itself.”

[A Simple Game]

7. It seems the age of the phone is a red herring, it's not the phone's

brand, type, or age that is in question, it's the data sent by the phone. Did the judges narrow the ruling or was it narrowed by the age of the phone and what the police were seeking for information?

[PatrynXX]

8. so how is THX1138?

shall I shave my head with said number.