<story><title>Utah Bans Police from Searching Digital Data Without a Warrant, Closes Loophole</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/04/16/utah-bans-police-from-searching-digital-data-without-a-warrant-closes-fourth-amendment-loophole/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>deftturtle</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s my opinion that there never should have been a loophole and that the 1970s SCOTUS cases ruled incorrectly about our expectations of privacy for the &amp;quot;third-party doctrine.&amp;quot; So this law, in my view, simply restores the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US constitution. I&amp;#x27;m glad they did it, but as noted in the article, Chief Justice Roberts had to take more complicated positions for Carpenter vs United States, a recent case about cell phone surveillance.&lt;p&gt;He said cell phone location information &amp;quot;does not fit neatly under existing precedents,&amp;quot; but I think the court should just re-evaluate the 1970s cases and come to a place of consistent reasoning about our data, so everything can fit neatly under the protection of the 4th amendment. When we use products or buy things, we expect our data to be private. I don&amp;#x27;t expect my banker to give away my personal financial information. Nor do I expect my cell phone carrier to share my call history. We do have an expectation of privacy, and the 1970s rulings are hugely flawed, especially in light of today&amp;#x27;s digital world.</text></comment>
<story><title>Utah Bans Police from Searching Digital Data Without a Warrant, Closes Loophole</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/04/16/utah-bans-police-from-searching-digital-data-without-a-warrant-closes-fourth-amendment-loophole/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>thaumasiotes</author><text>&amp;gt; In a concession to law enforcement, the act will let police obtain location-tracking information or subscriber data without a warrant if there’s an “imminent risk” of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, livestreamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking.&lt;p&gt;A fairly reasonable exception which is then randomly extended to also cover prostitution and porn. Oh well.&lt;p&gt;I do have to question why they needed a specific emergency exemption for &amp;quot;livestreamed sexual exploitation&amp;quot; when that &amp;quot;exploitation&amp;quot; would not qualify as &amp;quot;sexual abuse&amp;quot;. (If it were abuse, then it would already be covered under the exemption for sexual abuse!)</text></comment>