[Somebody, please tell me what it means…]
In theory, what I *think* it means is that I'll be able to resume posting relevant content two to three times per week. In practice? Stay tuned…
If you're a follower of the Supreme Court, and you're also someone who is very interested in rulings that affect privacy, and depending on which side you're on, then this week, you are either:
- Happy that the 4th Amendment was protected, but angry that the 5th Amendment wasn't, or,
- Angry that the 4th Amendment was protected, but happy that the 5th Amendment wasn't, or,
- Happy about both, or angry about both.
It all depends on the facts. In the Jones case, aka, the "GPS" case, the court decided that a physical intrusion onto private property to attach a GPS tracking device to a vehicle was a search as defined under the 4th Amendment. Note the word, "physical". If only it were that simple…
What about tracking a GPS-enabled device? That issue wasn't addressed, here (except for comments on it in concurring opinions). If one enables GPS to drive to a location, is that a voluntary disclosure? That'll be the next frontier.
In a lower-court decision, a federal judge in Colorado ordered a defendant in a criminal case to decrypt her laptop, stating that she was not afforded 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, setting off another round of debate – and an examination of conflicting rulings – that will likely meander its way to the Supreme Court.
The logic is of the kind that only law afficionados may appreciate; defendant doesn't technically have to give up her password because she only has to enter it into the system without divulging it to anyone.
In other words, "Don't give up your password…just give us access to everything the password protects." That, along with the "All Writs Act" of 1789, should afford you some interesting reading on the case.
An interesting week for the Bill of Rights and privacy, indeed…