This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent [-]

No, it's not about the contents. It's the fact that the data is presented in full public view with the specific intention that it be read.

▲

estearum an hour ago | parent [-]

Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections.

Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

▲

0x1d7 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

But will this put a damper in ALPRs from reading cellular/bluetooth radios?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...

▲

FireBeyond 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The FCC might be surprised to learn that they do not, in fact, regulate cellphones.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent [-]

Of course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.

	▲	iamnothere 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, well, multiple Courts have ruled several times in different ways against warrantless mass surveillance, so unless you’re planning to stack the Court, my money is on them remaining consistent here.

▲

estearum 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope.

United States v Jones already answered this question.