carnegie

gatorguy said:

The headline is not entirely accurate.

While in general a warrant will be required for gathering location records held by cellphone companies going forward it is not going to necessarily be ALWAYS:
“We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party”...

That's an important takeaway, SCOTUS is not saying a warrant is always required for personal data.

gatorguy said:

linkman said:

So this sounds like police-operated cell phone towers used to gather the same info AKA "Stingray" devices will be illegal in many circumstances. 

I don't see why one would be connected to the other. SCOTUS' ruling was relatively narrow.

This isn't really a narrow ruling. It's pretty categorical and represents a significant diversion from traditional third-party (Fourth Amendment) doctrine.

To be clear, in the passage from the majority opinion which you quote, the Court isn't saying that the government only needs a warrant to collect historical cell-site location information (CSLI) "in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party." Rather, it is saying that, when it comes to CSLI, people have a legitimate privacy interest in those records held by third parties such that a warrant is generally required. In other words, the Court is saying that it isn't completely dismantling third-party doctrine. That doctrine still generally applies as it traditionally has. It's just that, when it comes to CSLI, the privacy interest is more substantial than is the case when it comes to many other records held by third parties. In such cases, third-party doctrine doesn't apply as it traditionally has. This ruling means that, for the most part, the government needs a warrant to collect 7 days or more of CSLI records.

That said, the headline...

Supreme Court rules police always need warrant for cell tower location data

... is inaccurate. The Court didn't rule that police always need a warrant to collect CSLI. The Court left open the possibility that a warrant isn't needed for CSLI from less than 7 days. It indicated that it didn't need to decide today whether one was needed to collect CSLI from a shorter period of time. Further, although the Court today found that collecting CSLI (for a period of 7 days or more) represents a Fourth Amendment search, that doesn't mean that a warrant is always needed to collect such information. The Court was clear in that exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement (for searches) still apply. 

eightzero said:

carnegie said:

eightzero said:

SpamSandwich said:

rob53 said:

Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.

I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.

It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion. 

An appeal would be heard by the Federal Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit, because of the subject matter involved - i.e., it's a patent case.

Don't think so. It doesn't involve the validity of the patent - just the damages.

It involves issues of patent law.

The Federal Circuit is the court which remanded the case back to the USDC for the Northern District of California. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit which, a couple of months later, remanded it to the trial court.

eightzero said:

SpamSandwich said:

rob53 said:

Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.

I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.

It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion. 

An appeal would be heard by the Federal Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit, because of the subject matter involved - i.e., it's a patent case.

rob53 said:

Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.

Yes, Samsung can appeal.

Among other bases, Samsung could challenge the jury instructions relating to how to determine what the relevant article of manufacture is. The Supreme Court didn't provide guidance on making that determination, other than to say it isn't necessarily the entire end-user product. It wouldn't surprise me if the Court is willing to take up that issue on another appeal. Even if the Supreme Court doesn't ultimately grant cert, the Federal Circuit will likely have to consider the case (and that issue) again.

gatorguy said:

SpamSandwich said:

EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.

It wasn't the law. It was a carved-out special exception to it. The law stipulated a 12.5% tax-rate which is what smaller domestic companies were required to pay.

To be clear I am not personally judging that the special exception made for a very wealthy international corporation was ILLEGAL tho. One of the few entities whose opinion matters made that judgement. 

I'll ask the same question of you that I've asked others who have claimed that Apple got a special exception to Irish tax policy, and which no one (to include the European Commission in its decision) has yet been able to answer: If that's true, then what was that special exception?

What was Apple allowed to do that other similarly situated entities were told they couldn't do? Or that other entities weren't allowed to do? Or that was contrary to Irish tax law and policy?

The issue isn't that Apple didn't pay the generally applicable tax rate. It isn't claimed (i.e. by the European Commission) that Apple didn't pay the proper rate. The issue is how is the taxable base to which that rate is applied determined? On that front, what that Apple was allowed to do was inconsistent with more generally-applicable Irish tax policy? Was it that profits attributed to foreign branches of Irish corporations weren't taxable (as income) by Ireland? Was it using a percentage-of-expenses method to determine the profits which should be allocated to the domestic branch of an Irish corporation?

I'm asking sincerely. What is it that you believe Apple was allowed to do, in determining how much income was taxable in Ireland, which conflicted with Irish tax law or policy?