In January the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that tracking a suspect's movements by attaching a GPS transmitter to his car counts as a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. But because the majority opinion emphasized the physical intrusion needed to surreptitiously install the transmitter, it did not resolve the constitutional implications of surveillance using cellphones, the tracking devices that Americans voluntarily carry in their pockets and purses. In the absence of clear guidance, says Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, law enforcement agencies are making up the rules as they go along, often obtaining location data from cellphone carriers without a warrant even for routine investigations. Last week a House subcommittee considered a bill that would address this threat to privacy by requiring a warrant for geolocational surveillance, regardless of the method used.
Teen activists are righteously angry—but righteous anger does not produce sound public policy.
Clint Eastwood's masterful true-life drama about a wrongly accused American hero doubles as an awkward brief for Trump.
Privacy advocates have long warned about potential abuses. Will the mishandling of the Carter Page investigation change some minds?
No, but that's not stopping a litigious vegan from making his case.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz's Testimony on FBI Failures Should Be a Wakeup Call for the Media and the GOP
Republicans were wrong to side with the state on privacy issues, and the media was wrong to lionize anti-Trump G-men.