[ExI] Location Tracking Risks

[Darin Sunley]

Pessimistic futurists have long predicted that everybody would be required
to wear government tracking devices 24/7.

But in none of their darkest nightmares did any of them predict we'd
happily pay hundreds of dollars every few years for the devices themselves,
and dozens of dollars a month to keep them activated.

This is indeed a disturbing timeline.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/listening

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:38 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of
> BillK via extropy-chat
> Subject: [ExI] Location Tracking Risks
>
> >...There is a huge industry involved in mobile phone location tracking.
> ...
>
> >...It is an interesting question whether government use of location
> tracking is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, which is intended to protect
> citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  BillK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Hi BillK, thanks for that.  Cell phones have been in the constitutional
> gray
> area ever since they came about.  Strict constitutionalists have split both
> ways on it, and I myself have gone 360 at least 4 times over the past two
> decades.
>
> When one is a strict constitutionalist, as I am, that means strict.  Since
> the constitution predated cell phones (and abortion) it doesn't
> specifically
> give the federal government the authority to rule on those areas (by my
> reasoning.)  A strict constitutionalist would argue that this would be a
> state government call, if that state writes into its constitution the right
> to look at cell phone data.
>
> The way I would go is to consider cell phone tracking as metadata, which is
> analogous to the address on an envelope you drop off at the post office.
> Secure in houses and letters means the federal government is allowed to
> note
> if you are writing letters to commies for instance, but may not legally
> open
> and read the letters.  This is how I interpret that "secure in houses and
> letter" clause.  Your cell phone location is metadata, so I would say from
> a
> strict constitutionalist POV, the fed is allowed to collect it or buy it,
> but not to listen to the conversations.
>
> I am open to suggestion and counter-argument on that point.  Naturally
> yanks
> have grown quite distrustful of our FBI considering recent events, and I
> don't like their collecting location info, but as far as I can tell, it is
> constitutionally legal.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220720/a931c494/attachment.htm>