We’re ACLU lawyers going to the Supreme Court to defend cell phone privacy. AUA

UPDATE 3pm ET: That's a wrap. Thanks for your questions, everyone.

This month, the ACLU will be at the Supreme Court, arguing in a case that has historic implications for privacy in the digital age.

The case concerns whether the Fourth Amendment provides protection when police seek a person’s cell phone location records. In 2011, federal investigators obtained more than four months of Timothy Carpenter’s cell phone location data from his service provider without a search warrant during a criminal investigation in Detroit. The data revealed thousands of his location points. Because of an outdated legal theory, the government insists these records, along with the data generated by other popular technologies, aren’t covered by the Constitution’s safeguard against warrantless search and seizure.

Yet these records can reveal an incredible amount of private information and should absolutely be entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. The Supreme Court’s decision will set a precedent for years to come, making it crucial that it ensures that the police are subject to limits on search and seizure in the digital age.

Today you’ll chat with:

u/NWessler, Nate Wessler, ACLU attorney arguing the case at the Supreme Court

u/Granick, Jennifer Granick. ACLU surveillance and cybersecurity counsel

Proof:

Jennifer: https://twitter.com/granick/status/925832651927207936

Nate:https://twitter.com/NateWessler/status/925831517665923077

Comments: 102 • Responses: 2  • Date: 

aclu5 karma

Question from Twitter user: What steps can we take to ensure our digital signature is protected like our paper documents at home and in courts?

sassy_jack-4 karma

How does the ACLU reconcile defending hate speech with first amendment protections (https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech) and then state that it's not protected by the first amendment (https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-statement-white-supremacist-violence-not-free-speech)? Is there a way for the ACLU to navigate those weird waters where a group of folks think the ACLU is one thing (progressive/defending immigrant rights, fighting Trump) but get disappointed or even angry when the politics don't match up completely with the stated goals of the ACLU?

aclu9 karma

The First Amendment doesn't protect the ability to incite or engage in violence. At the same time, we believe that even the worst hate speech that we disagree with garners the protections of the First Amendment.

And the ACLU is a multi-issue group dedicated to defending the rights of everyone in the United States, and our work will not always break down on partisan lines.