Why the high court protects cellphone privacy

In its ruling on cellphone privacy, the Supreme Court points out that such digital devices are now a pervasive part of daily life, extending our identities into new realms. Ensuring privacy is a way to protect new notions of identity.

|
AP Photo
A Supreme Court visitor takes pictures with her cellphone outside the Supreme Court in Washington in April during a hearing by the justices on whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant.

With each new advance in personal technology, so much of who we are as individuals becomes more pervasive, extending far beyond a material body. Our daily thoughts or habits can be put into a “cloud” on the Web. Google or Facebook may contain troves of personal history. Our electronic identities seem more transparent and less earthbound.

Because of these challenges to old notions of personhood, the Supreme Court issued a ruling Wednesday that comes down hard on police conducting arbitrary searches of cellphones used by people arrested for a crime. Such digital devices, from iPads to smart phones, can contain a record of nearly every aspect of a person’s life “from the mundane to the intimate,” stated Chief Justice John Roberts for the court’s majority. The proverbial visitor from Mars, he wrote, might conclude that cellphones are “an important feature of human anatomy.”

The ruling is not a total embrace of cellphone privacy. Police will still be allowed to search a phone in the case of an extreme emergency, such as an immediate bomb threat or a reasonable risk of evidence being destroyed. But during most arrests, police will need to prove “probable cause” to a judge and obtain a warrant before fishing for evidence of another crime in a person’s cellphone.

Protecting privacy is not simply a matter of avoiding arbitrary abuse by government. Yes, the Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” was written by the Founding Fathers to prevent the kind of searches conducted by British soldiers in the homes of Colonial Americans. But privacy also helps individuals to thrive. It allows for freedom of thought, solitude for growth, and intimacy of personal relationships. These uses of privacy lie behind the heightened concern to maintain it.

“Modern cellphones aren’t a technological convenience,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life’.”

This ruling reflects the many legal challenges posed by new technologies, such as DNA analysis and GPS tracking. Judges are being asked to sort out the difficult legal distinctions that each new technology brings. In another ruling Wednesday, for example, the Supreme Court decided against Aereo Inc., a service that retransmits signals from broadcast TV to paying customers. The court said the service infringes on copyrighted programming. But as with similar cases, the court hinted it might be better for lawmakers to decide the deeper issues.

In 2012, the high court ruled against police being able to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car without a warrant. Yet it ruled in 2013 that police could take a DNA sample of anyone under arrest, likening it to fingerprinting. In both rulings, the justices were sharply divided.

Such cases raise moral questions about personal autonomy and the presumption of innocence. The Constitution and previous court decisions can provide limited guidance. It is up to citizens to press lawmakers on how to resolve the issues posed by new technologies. Each person’s “new” identity in the digital universe depends on it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why the high court protects cellphone privacy
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2014/0625/Why-the-high-court-protects-cellphone-privacy
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe