# The Carpenter Decision: SCOTUS rules against awl-encompassing gov't surveillance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2018, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-carpenter-decision-scotus-rules-against-awl-encompassing-govt-surveillance/816606 "2018-06-23T01:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-carpenter-decision-scotus-rules-against-awl-encompassing-govt-surveillance/816606/61 "2018-06-25T23:57:38Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Now, see, this is just the sort of thing I was cautioning you about. The suggestion that failure to undertake a major home renovation project – or failure to disconnect from twenty-first-century society by giving up the routine use of cell phones – is required to assert privacy rights is the sort of point-and-laugh argument that the justices rejected in _Kyllo_ and _Carpenter_. If you don’t want people to see the photons, don’t send them out to where anyone, police or public, can see them. Or make a law or amendment that actually covers privacy better than what we have now. The line the courts seem to be falling on is that using your natural senses is ok, but augmenting them in a way than any member of the public is free to do to detect something that is emanating out of the home into public space constitutes a search. I would prefer more privacy protections that it seems, to me, the constitution and its current amendments provide, rather than relying on 5-4 decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-carpenter-decision-scotus-rules-against-awl-encompassing-govt-surveillance/816606/62 "2018-06-26T09:56:13Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > The line the courts seem to be falling on is that using your natural senses is ok, but augmenting them in a way than any member of the public is free to do to detect something that is emanating out of the home into public space constitutes a search. I’m not seeing the problem here. Police are routinely limited by law in ways that random members of the Teeming Millions are not (e.g. some random sclub is free to express opinions of your T-Shirt message that would constitute illicit intimidation if voiced by a cop). Even setting that aside, your argument clearly does not apply to the _Carpenter_ case, unless you labor under the delusion that some random member of the public could just walk into the local AT&T or Sprint or T-Mobile office and ask to see somebody’s cell phone records and they would hand them over. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-carpenter-decision-scotus-rules-against-awl-encompassing-govt-surveillance/816606/63 "2018-06-26T11:07:00Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I’m not seeing the problem here. Police are routinely limited by law in ways that random members of the Teeming Millions are not (e.g. some random sclub is free to express opinions of your T-Shirt message that would constitute illicit intimidation if voiced by a cop). > > Even setting that aside, your argument clearly does not apply to the _Carpenter_ case, unless you labor under the delusion that some random member of the public could just walk into the local AT&T or Sprint or T-Mobile office and ask to see somebody’s cell phone records and they would hand them over. It’s the phone company’s records. I double they’d hand them over to most people for free, but they sell them frequently enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-carpenter-decision-scotus-rules-against-awl-encompassing-govt-surveillance/816606.md?page=3)