The full corpus — beyond today's front page.
8 results
The Supreme Court has ruled that location data generated by mobile phones is protected under the Fourth Amendment, meaning the government generally needs a warrant to access it.
Who should care: Privacy officers · Cybersecurity · General readers · Policy
A legal analysis from the IAPP examines how the Fourth Circuit's Chatrie decision, which addressed the constitutionality of geofence warrants, carries implications for data governance that extend well beyond Fourth Amendment doctrine. The ruling's reasoning about how location data is collected and used may reshape how organizations think about data minimization and third-party data practices.
Who should care: Privacy officers · Cybersecurity
The Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie v. United States on the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which compel tech companies to hand over location data for all devices near a specific place and time. The decision represents a significant moment for digital privacy rights and Fourth Amendment protections in the context of modern law enforcement tools.
Who should care: General readers · Privacy officers · Policy
The Supreme Court's Chatrie decision addressed how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital-age surveillance, with analysts describing the ruling as a limited but meaningful check on law enforcement's ability to use technology to override privacy protections.
Who should care: Privacy officers · Cybersecurity · General readers · Policy
The Supreme Court has ruled that cellphone users' location history is protected under constitutional privacy guarantees, a decision that limits how law enforcement can access that data. The ruling extends Fourth Amendment protections to a category of digital records that courts had long treated as fair game.
Who should care: Lawyers · Compliance · General readers · Privacy officers · Policy
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that geofence searches violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, finding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy against this type of location-based surveillance. The Electronic Privacy Information Center welcomed the decision.
Who should care: Privacy officers · Cybersecurity · General readers · Policy
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie v. United States that people have a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in location data tracking their physical movements, and that even short-term surveillance of those movements constitutes a search requiring constitutional justification. The case centered on geofence warrants, which allow police to collect location data from all devices near a crime scene.
Who should care: Privacy officers · Cybersecurity · General readers · Policy
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant before accessing a person's location history from companies like Google and Apple. The decision extends Fourth Amendment protections to data that individuals share with third-party technology companies.
Who should care: General readers · Privacy officers · Policy