The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

What I think folks should be worried about today, if I could just like pull out a couple

of words here from one part of the decision, just one sentence.

Port says, in light of the deeply revealing nature of self-scipleification information,

its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of

self-scipleification.

That is what the court is concerned about.

That means that you have a fourth amendment interest, fourth amendment right, with respect

to having your, requiring the government to get a warrant to collect information with respect

to you when it falls into this category.

So the depth, the breadth, comprehensive reach, and escapeable and automatic nature, and

also they were quite concerned about, seemed to me, the fact that this type of collection

goes on continually with respect to the entire population of the United States.

I'm Matthew Khan, and you're listening to the LawFair podcast June 29, 2018.

On June 22, the Supreme Court released its long awaited ruling in Carpenters' V United

States, a case challenging whether law enforcement agencies need a search warrant to acquire the

history of a cell phone's location from a wireless provider.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the five justice majority that doing so amounts

...