Those in favor of the bill argue that the information that would be obtained would not be overly intrusive into other's privacy. It would help law enforcement more easily track an abducted child or missing person by giving real time location information about a targeted individual. Currently, cell towers receive the position of cell phones numerous times in a day. This information is saved by one's mobile carrier without the consent of the phone holder.
Those against it argue that it contradicts the Fourth Amendment and people's right to privacy. They also brought up a 2012 Supreme Court case that ruled that a search warrant must be obtained before GPS technology can be used to track criminal suspects.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland (ACLU) is against the cell phone tracking information bill. The mission statement of this group says is dedicated to ensuring "that all people in the state of Maryland...can lead their lives free from discrimination and unwarranted government intrusion."
Where do you stand? Is it unconstitutional for the government to obtain location services on cellular devices without a search warrant? Or should the government be able to access information that is already given to the mobile carriers?
3 comments:
I think this controversy is a perfect example of exactly how much society has changed, and the question of constitutionality regarding things like cellular devices presents a whole new realm of interpretation. Personally, I feel like as a general statement, law enforcement should be required to possess a search warrant in order to obtain location records from cellular devices, as I really don't see why this should stand as an exception from the already mandated search warrant policy. As to the argument of tracking real time location information for a missing person, maybe the law could include a clause stating that a search warrant is only exempt in the case of a missing person, abducted child, etc, and in the cases of "immediate or pressing danger," so as to not restrict law enforcement from tracking real time location in the cases of extreme emergencies. Obviously, the wording of the clause would have to be a little better than what I wrote, and there would be questions over what constituted an "immediate and pressing danger," but I think that this type of clause would be a compromising addition to the controversial law.
It seems like one of the major issues here is that mobile carriers may track peoples' locations without their consent. To my mind, this violates our basic right to privacy, even if it isn't being done by the government. At very least, this is immoral. Location data ought to be collected with the phones' owners' knowledge and consent.
Like Rory said, technology has presented a brand-new aspect of life for the law to deal with. Since the Constitution was written before much of our technology was developed, it seems perfectly reasonable for new amendments regarding it to be written to address these issues.
I agree with both Rory and Shannon. I don't believe that our right to privacy should be infringed upon just because technology has become more advanced. Although the constitution was written hundreds of years before cell phone technology was ever developed, I think that it was written using broad language specifically for situations like this. Obviously, our founding fathers could not have foreseen how technology would develop, but I don't think that gives the government the right to invade our privacy without a warrant. Technology has made many of our rights, such as our right to privacy or our right to free speech, more complex and ambiguous, but I don't think that people should use the constitution's lack of specification about technology to encroach on our fundamental rights.
Post a Comment