Kentucky Supreme Court Rules on Cellphone Geo-Tracking Case - Proving “2000 Mules” point
(www.greensburgdailynews.com)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
The big difference here is that the police accessed real-time data without a warrant. The True the Vote data was marketing type data purchased after the fact. It does show that the available data is accurate enough to pinpoint the criminal's location though.
Also, I think the data purchased for 2000 mules was anonymous data.
The ruling was about Law Enforcement, not private companies or individuals purchasing data.
Great news. Bad for Demonrats
I agree, however, they said it was a warrant less search, so I interpret it to mean that to prosecute, the cops merely request a warrant to search the cell phone data. I think this will go to a higher court to decide. The courts will be flooded with search warrant requests and I think they wouldn’t like that.
Yes, I agree again, thanks!
Okay, so if the police can’t use it ban the rest of government, social media, and advertisers from using the data.
It it's already 'banned'. Users opt-in when they agree to hand that information over to the various groups you mention. They didn't agree to real time warrantless police tracking.