Well I have to admit, I have just really not kept up with this legal issue. What little I understand about it is just what I have read here.
But I have to say; the more I think about it, the less it seems like an invasion of privacy to me.
I usually just say "smarter minds than mine" when it comes to decisions from "SCROTUMS". LOL. But here it seems like the information that is being protected here is public information since it is on a person's public movements and therefore not even entitled to any protection to begin with. It also seems that their ruling is not in harmony with som of their other rulings that seemed like they okayed clear privacy violations, i.e. cell phone triaging by Police during a traffic stop without a warrant..
Just my personal opinion...
Ricky B. Gurley.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, suesarkis@... wrote:
> Rick -
> I'm not saying I agree with the decision. I just pointed out what the
> decision said. It was the liberals on the bench who wrote the decision with
> Sotomayer writing her own concurring opinion which would really blow your
> socks off.