Quote · This Week in Tech (Audio)
TWiT 1091: But You Didn't Move the Bodies - Surprising Supreme Court Move on Geofence Warrants
Where this was said
Supreme Court Rules Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional
At 10:45 · chapter starts 5:00
Leo walks through the landmark ruling: Justice Kagan's majority opinion found that sweeping geofence warrants — demanding data on everyone near a crime scene — constitute a Fourth Amendment search even when the target was moving through public space. The panel is pleasantly surprised that a 6-3 majority came down against the government. But Lisa Schmeiser stops everyone to flag the ruling's sleeper implication: for the first time, a Supreme Court decision explicitly ties an individual to the data they generate and argues they retain control over it [1] — Leo Laporte "The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geofence warrants — police requests for everyone's location data near a crime scene — violate the Fourth A…" 05:00 . That, she argues, is a legal time bomb for every data broker and ad-tech company in existence [2] — Lisa Schmeiser "We now have something in a Supreme Court decision that explicitly connects an individual to the data that they generate and argues that the…" 10:45 . Owen adds personal context, describing how he carries a Faraday cage for his phone, while the panel connects the ruling to Flock cameras, Bluetooth snarfers, and the broader normalization of public surveillance.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geofence warrants — police requests for everyone's location data near a crime scene — violate the Fourth Amendment. The ruling implicitly establishes that people own their own data, even when generated in public spaces, which could trigger a cascade of lawsuits against companies profiting from personal data.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geofence warrants — sweeping requests for location data of everyone near a crime scene — violate the Fourth Amendment.
Buried inside the geofence warrant ruling is a radical idea: you own the data you generate. That's a legal first. If courts follow through on this logic, it could end the era of companies harvesting your personal data without consent or compensation.
Justice Kagan's majority opinion effectively establishes that individuals own the data they generate, potentially opening the door to lawsuits against companies profiting from personal data without consent.
