Most Read: Business

 Last Update: 2:45 PM 04/27/2015(NASDAQ&DJIA)

World Markets from      


Other Market Data from      


Key Rates from      


Blog Contributors

Timothy B. Lee

Timothy B. Lee

Timothy B. Lee covers technology policy, including copyright and patent law, telecom regulation, privacy, and free speech. He also writes about the economics of technology. He has previously written for Ars Technica and Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter or send him email.

Brian Fung

Brian Fung

Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on electronic privacy, national security, digital politics and the Internet that binds it all together. He was previously the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at the Atlantic. His writing has also appeared in Foreign Policy, Talking Points Memo, the American Prospect and Nonprofit Quarterly. Follow Brian on Google+ .

Andrea Peterson

Andrea Peterson

Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post, with an emphasis on cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open government. She also delves into the societal impacts of technology access and how innovation is intertwined with cultural development.

Post Tech
About / Where's Post I.T.?   |    Twitter  |   On Facebook  |  RSS RSS Feed  |  E-Mail Cecilia
Posted at 01:35 PM ET, 01/23/2012

SCOTUS’s GPS decision tests limits of privacy, new technologies

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Luis Alvarez - Associated Press)
In a case that tests the limits of privacy laws and the uses of new technology, the Supreme Court said in an opinion Monday that law enforcement must first obtain a warrant for the use of global positioning systems to track suspects.

As reported by my colleague Robert Barnes, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the government needed a valid warrant before attaching a GPS device to the Jeep used by D.C. drug kingpin Antoine Jones, who was convicted in part because police tracked his movements on public roads for 28 days.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, found the action constituted a “search” as outlined in the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Here’s the SCOTUS opinion.


Supreme Court worries new technologies creates “1984” scenario

Google, Apple pressed on mobile privacy

Facebook continues DC hiring binge as privacy practices come into view

By  |  01:35 PM ET, 01/23/2012

Read what others are saying

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company