"A Sprint operator declined to provide Riverside police with global positioning system coordinates, that would have helped locate the car and the child, without first getting a subpoena."What got peoples' ire was that the car in question had been stolen, and there was a 10-month old baby in it at the time.
Apparently, Sprint has apologized for the incident, and is now working with the county to see how this can be avoided in the future. In return, the county has decided not to "slap a moratorium on new cellular towers".
Frankly, I think Sprint acted correctly in not providing the information -- to do otherwise would have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Police do not have the right to search your home simply because they feel like it, and likewise they should not be able to arbitrarily retrieve the whereabouts of any citizen simply by telling the telephone carrier that there is a need to know. That is what Judges are for.
Clearly, the presence of a baby in the car in this particular situation makes this an exceptional case, which is one reason why it is so thorny. Nobody wants to be viewed as unsympathetic to a parent or baby; however, the possibility exists to set precedent that will bind even when there is nothing exceptional.
It's also wrong of the county to abuse their zoning privilege simply to bully a corporation. Obviously, they seek to pressure Sprint to provide location information voluntarily and thereby make an end run around the constitutional issues. Shame on them!
When will people learn?
1 comment:
I bet if more people used their second amendment right, our government would be more willing to do what is in the best interest of the people.
Post a Comment