FIRST AIRED: November 29, 2017

Nice work! Enjoy the show!


You’re busy. We get it.

Stay on top of the news with our Editor’s Picks newsletter.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Unsubscribe at any time. One click, it’s gone.

Thanks for signing up!

We've got more news

Get our editor’s daily email summary of what’s going on in the world.

US Edition
Intl. Edition
Replay Program
More Info

COMING UP:Share Opener Variant 1



>> The Supreme Court on Wednesday takes up a landmark case on cell phone privacy. The nine justices set to decide whether police should be required to get a warrant to access cell phone location data that could implicate a criminal suspect. Lawrence Hurley is reporting the story.>> This is a major case on digital privacy in the digital age so it has huge ramifications across the board.
It's been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents a criminal defendant, whose cell phone location information was used to link him with several robberies. And this issue is of big importance because it's kind of location information, it can be quite easily accessed by law enforcement because, they don't need a warrant and the ACLU says that's a privacy concern.
It violates the fourth amendment of the US constitution.>> The justice department taking the other side says it relying on a 1986 law that says only reasonable grounds are needed in the investigation. Despite massive growth in the amount and types of customer data stored by phone and tech companies, the laws on how to treat that information have ragged behind.
For their part, most of the wireless providers are parked on the sidelines. The latest example of how American phone carriers have avoided taking sides in data privacy disputes that may pit them against the US Government.>> Whereas the tech companies come out of Silicon Valley it kind have more that kind of Libertarian background, more willing to take on the government.
The phone companies generally speaking have not been very forth coming as kind of advocates for customer privacy.>> Which ever way it goes, the case sets serious implications for digital privacy.>> If the defendant wins in this case it would lead the federal government and other law enforcement agencies to have to change the way they do business because it will be much harder for them to get this information.
On the other hand if the government wins though it says it's not a constitutional issue and it therefore give the government more lee way to kinda do what it want in the short term that will help law enforcement