Time To Close the Car Snitch Loophole
When you plug your phone into your car to listen to your favorite band or podcast, you give police a way to rummage around in your personal data without a warrant.

When you plug your phone into your car to listen to your favorite band or podcast, you give police a way to rummage around in your personal data without a warrant. That includes not just GPS details but all the other information your phone shares with your car's onboard computer.
The Supreme Court has held that police generally need a search warrant to examine the information on a cellphone, to track a car by attaching a GPS device to it, and to obtain cellphone location data from service providers. But Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has not caught up with rapid advances in car technology, leaving the door open for police to extract data from vehicles without their owners' knowledge.
The Intercept reported in 2021 that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had purchased "vehicle forensics" kits that can retrieve travel data, text messages, and photos from synced devices. This workaround is likely legal, because car computers seem to fall under the "vehicle exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant -requirement.
Under that exception, which the Court invented in 1925 to facilitate enforcement of alcohol prohibition, police may search a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe they will find contraband or other evidence of illegal activity. A bill with bipartisan support in the House and Senate would prevent police from using that exception to grab information on a car's computer.
The Closing Warrantless Digital Car Search Loophole Act would require a warrant for such a search unless operating the vehicle requires a commercial driver's license. Any vehicle data obtained without a warrant could not be used as a basis for probable cause or as evidence considered by courts, grand juries, or regulatory agencies.
"The idea [that] the government can peruse digital car data without a warrant should sit next to the Geo Metro on the scrap heap of history," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), who introduced the Senate version of the bill along with Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.). The House sponsors are Reps. Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) and Ro Khanna (D–Calif.).
The legislation is supported by several civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Modern vehicles can reveal as much about us as our phones—not only where we go, but who we call, and even what we weigh," said EFF Legislative Director Lee Tien. "Yet the federal government has argued it can access this sensitive driver and passenger information freely, without a warrant."
Congress should close this loophole and bring the Constitution's protection against warrantless searches into the 21st century.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Pass it, but not far enough as a reform. A warrant for this activity should be of a much higher level than one granting location records, etc. The very personal information most of us probably carry on our phones - and likely with many not realizing it - is of a completely different nature than past locations, what's in your trunk - when you at least know it's been searched - or other types searches. Perhaps this bill does require more stringent warrant requirements and the article just doesn't mention it.
That's a good point. I try to be mindful and careful about what goes on my phone but there is undoubtedly more data there than I'm aware of.
The 4th Amendment was already passed, a couple of hundred years ago. Just start arresting and prosecuting government agents who violate the civil rights of citizens under color of law. It's already a federal crime, carrying a 10 year sentence.
There were no bootleggers before 1925, no one ever did anything illegal with a horse, no one ever carried anything illicit on a cart, and there were no booze taxes to avoid before 1925.
Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. dfg I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
.
Details on this website:>>> http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/
Newer cars will be specially equipped with internally-focused TV cameras. I am warning ye... Do NOT blow upon cheap plastic "lung flutes", without authorization, in newer cars!!! Ye law-breaking criminally insane SCUM, ye!
To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!
Already exists on the comma AI, an open pilot system that provides semi-autonomous driving controls. A camera looks back at the driver and disengages the system if he's not paying attention. Reason covered this years ago.
Comma driving system
Wow, the ACLU is on the right side of an issue? That's rare these days.
It amazes me how many laws we have to pass to keep the courts admitting the constitution exists. Ever notice how many court rulings are for the convenience of the cops?
Why not just pass a law overturning the "car exception"?
Why is there an exception in this bill for vehicles requiring a commercial license?
Who is John Galt?
Cops are "officers of the court." So of course the courts are going to defer to them whenever possible.
Simple: if you might encounter cops drive a burner car.
Electric burner car, please.
So Chevy bolt?
Or Tesla.....
Right idea, wrong tactic. Have the car password protect the data and no new parameters are required. As it stands this is like demanding a warrant for documents strewn about the backseat, if they've got justification to get onto the car they're golden but extra steps are required if the documents are in a locked case in the backseat.
Problem is that manufacturers want those data now. It's not just a matter of plugging in a dongle to clear codes at the mechanic's like in the old days, your Tesla or whatever new car slurps up all sorts of data which can get sent along to them for many valuable purposes. The next step for a lot of auto manufacturers is connectivity like Tesla has, and it's an absolute gold mine from a data perspective.
If you are allowed to encrypt* and password protect all data from your car the data revenue stream dries up, so car manufacturers might not do it voluntarily.
*ENCRYPT is vital -- passwords aren't worth shit and can be broken, so for any security your data have to be encrypted at rest.
But then EV prices would skyrocket! My God! The Climate!!
I travel frequently and it never fails that when i get into a rental car the allotted slots for paired phones is full. 9 out of 10 are so and so's iPhone.
So, if I don't bring a cell phone with me when I drive, could that mean I'm going to commit a crime? Or that I'm somehow a threat to national security?
Let me state that I don't own a cell phone. So does that make me a criminal or threat to national security ? Yes, I know,,,I'm a luudite.; Anti social and possible right wing extremist that Merrick Garland keeps gargling about.
Some people give me weird looks when I tell them I don't do Facebook, Twitter or any other social media including Google. They look at me as though I had stomped on their little puppy.
The 2015 Grand Caravan I drive has no GPS, no cell phone, and I don't believe it has any way to connect a cell phone to the vehicle.
I know that makes me a suspicious person of interest. Maybe even a Jan.6 conspirator to overthrow the government.
I expect the Dept. of Homeland Security or the FBI show up beating my door down any day now.
Without all that tech shit, how will they find you?
Surely not by doing actual cop work!
Well, driving a 2015 Grand Caravan is probable cause in and of itself.
No navigation system?
There needs to be a provision that won't give States a loophole like implied consent for DUI. A State can pass a law stating that you agree to a "search" of a car's computer as a condition to register the vehicle.
This workaround is likely legal, because car computers seem to fall under the "vehicle exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant -requirement.
The vehicle exception appears to be missing from my copy of the 4th Amendment. Mine just says the following:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Sorry, buy my phone data is part of my "papers and effects", and rummaging through it is obviously an "unreasonable search".
you car is also your effects but some how they made a loophole.
time to remove the computer from our cars. i'd be happy to get rid of mine never had one till this year and its a waste of time and money.
Unless your last car was a Yugo, you've always had a computer in your car.
I have an older toyota. 20 years old, to be exact, and it doesn't have any of the modern computerized stuff.
It's only the last decade -- post smart phone -- that connected automotive has become a thing. Before 2010 or so far less data was stored, and the connection to your car was probably the output of the headphone jack so you could stream off your iPod.
Rummaging thru your phone data is obviously a "search"; if the
Supremes say so, it's "reasonable."
The 4th and 8th Amendments are total fails due to weasel words like unreasonable, excessive cruel, and unusual.
now do Alexa.
You can't do Alexa without a subscription to Amazon Prime.
also, Red Barchetta.
I use a USB condom (e.g., stopsync.com) when I rent a car. It's not total protection - you might carelessly pair your phone to the car using Bluetooth - but cheap & better than nothing.
I doubt you can stream digital content on a smartphone that's connected to a condomed USB port. But you can use Bluetooth for that, & none of the data should be stored on the car.
If your car has streaming services integrated into the sound system, then you can't really stop the car from collecting data. But if the cops want to scrape my playlists, have at it.
syncstop.com actually -- I went and looked it up. Good idea, at least from a paranoid standpoint.
No you can't stream digital content with one of those. It allows you to charge your phone and completely blocks the dataport. Good idea, especially if you travel places where unscrupulous hackers exist and you might not trust a USB charging port to be only a charging port.
That said, when I travel (well, in the before times, I haven't traveled in the post 'rona now now times) I carry a wall charger and a charger for a cigarette plug power port and only use them to charge publicly or in a rental car for this reason. I will never use a public USB style power port with my work phone.
I have a cord that only has the connections for power not data. It takes a little longer to charge the phone, but, it is secure.
Why the CDL exemption? People with CDL's have rights as much as anyone else.
Not when they're driving a CMV, effectively they don't. :-\ It may not be right, but nobody who has a CDL and drives with it currently will be surprised by this.
Land of the free...to be bent over.
The citizens’ elected representatives and judges/justices appointed to represent our interests cannot perform that vital oath-sworn duty isolated in a security-bubble. How can one govern us if out of touch?
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress (Intelligence & Judiciary Committee members) should go “under-cover”. Sort of an “Under Cover Boss” exercise (TV series). Maybe be intentionally blacklisted by their state’s “Fusion Center” for perfectly legal constitutional activities which results in lifelong blacklisting for non-crimes and non-wrongdoing.
Most of America’s public servants are good people but many are simply out of touch with what is really happening to average Americans. For example: should a Trump supporter, an environmentalist, LGBT-Americans, etc. (all blacklisted, by some states, exploiting 9/11 created Fusion Centers) be harassed for life (life sentence) by police and officials for non-crimes and non-wrongdoing? These leaders will never see this genuine evil isolated in their security-bubbles.
Thx a lot for this