New Jersey Supreme Court Restricts Police Searches of Phone Data

An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times: "Staking out new ground in the noisy debate about technology and privacy in law enforcement, the New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the police will now have to get a search warrant before obtaining tracking information from cellphone providers. The ruling (PDF) puts the state at the forefront of efforts to define the boundaries around a law enforcement practice that a national survey last year showed was routine, and typically done without court oversight or public awareness. With lower courts divided on the use of cellphone tracking data, legal experts say, the issue is likely to end up before the United States Supreme Court. The New Jersey decision also underscores the extent of the battles over government intrusion into personal data in a quickly advancing digital age, from small town police departments to the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mail and cellphone conversations."

Re:I see what you did there.

[schneidafunk]

This ruling is for the police, not the NSA.

Re:What difference does it make

[plover]

A buddy of mine has had a couple of occasions to see his criminal record. At the time, he was concerned because he had some "youthful indiscretions" that the judge ordered were to be expunged when he became an adult, and if they had come to light they probably would not have improved the situation he was in at the time.

Apparently, expunging meant taking his manila folder and sealing it shut with actual red tape that had the word "EXPUNGED" printed on it.

"Young man, this will go down on your permanent record!" - truer words were never spoken.

Re:I see what you did there.

[girlintraining]

At least removing them from the equation fixes part of the problem, and hopefully prevents New Jersey police from tackling car insurance cases by using the same tools applied to international terrorists.

This is the right attitude. New Jersey is telling the Federal government that there are some lines you just don't cross. They can't stop them from expanding their reach and handing out privacy-invading laws and tools... but they can say no. It's called judicial restraint, and it's neither politically fashionable nor popular right now... which makes it all the more remarkable when it happens.