미국 연방법원의 위치정보(locational information)관련 최근 판결례 분석
The U.S. Supreme Court's U. S. v. Jones and expectation of privacy over GPS devices
2
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
We do live in a digital age. It has been witnessed an explosion of communications and media devices into the market. The use of GPS and the location-related information are is prevalent in modern information ages. According to communication technology developments, the privacy violations arising from governmental abuse of GPS data from cellular phones and vehicle tracking systems are obvious, however. With private telephone conversation, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the 4th Amendment protection on the base of trespass doctrine in Olmstead v. U. S.(227 U. S. 438 (1928)). Regarding to public telephone booth's conversation, the U. S. the Supreme Court recognized the 4th Amendment doctrines with reasonable expectation of privacy theories in Katz v. United States(389 U.S. 347 (1967)). Katz's emphasis on privacy served as a foundation for the later spatial emphasis in Fourth Amendment law, such as United States v. Knotts(460 U.S. 276 (1983)). and United States v. Karo(468 U.S. 705 (1984)). The public-space versus private-space distinction was underlying the beeper related GPS cases, United States v. Knotts(460 U.S. 276 (1983)) as well as United States v. Karo(468 U.S. 705 (1984)). The United States Supreme Court dealt with the Fourth Amendment seizure limitations on government's ability to install a GPS device onto a privately owned vehicle in United States v. Jones(132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)). The Supreme Court's majority opinion of Jones case was based on trespass doctrine of the 18th century English torts law. The government's installation of a GPS device onto a private vehicle without warrant for the purpose of obtaining information constituted a “search” subject to Fourth Amendment protections. It provided no guidance about the conditions that would render such GPS surveillance constitutional. The ruling of Jones case was narrow. Regarding to cellular phone's GPS tracking, the U. S. circuit court partially overruled the rulings of Jones in United States v. Skinner(690 F.3d 772 (2012)) later.
Abstract
We do live in a digital age. It has been witnessed an explosion of communications and media devices into the market. The use of GPS and the location-related information are is prevalent in modern information ages. According to communication technology developments, the privacy violations arising from governmental abuse of GPS data from cellular phones and vehicle tracking systems are obvious, however. With private telephone conversation, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the 4th Amendment protection on the base of trespass doctrine in Olmstead v. U. S.(227 U. S. 438 (1928)). Regarding to public telephone booth's conversation, the U. S. the Supreme Court recognized the 4th Amendment doctrines with reasonable expectation of privacy theories in Katz v. United States(389 U.S. 347 (1967)). Katz's emphasis on privacy served as a foundation for the later spatial emphasis in Fourth Amendment law, such as United States v. Knotts(460 U.S. 276 (1983)). and United States v. Karo(468 U.S. 705 (1984)). The public-space versus private-space distinction was underlying the beeper related GPS cases, United States v. Knotts(460 U.S. 276 (1983)) as well as United States v. Karo(468 U.S. 705 (1984)). The United States Supreme Court dealt with the Fourth Amendment seizure limitations on government's ability to install a GPS device onto a privately owned vehicle in United States v. Jones(132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)). The Supreme Court's majority opinion of Jones case was based on trespass doctrine of the 18th century English torts law. The government's installation of a GPS device onto a private vehicle without warrant for the purpose of obtaining information constituted a “search” subject to Fourth Amendment protections. It provided no guidance about the conditions that would render such GPS surveillance constitutional. The ruling of Jones case was narrow. Regarding to cellular phone's GPS tracking, the U. S. circuit court partially overruled the rulings of Jones in United States v. Skinner(690 F.3d 772 (2012)) later.
참고문헌 (12)
- 박균성, "행정법강의 제8판" (2011), 박영사
- 반현, "정보화사회의 역기능:사생활침해", 지역정보화, 61 (2010)
- 박인수, "사생활의 비밀과 자유의 보호영역에 관한 연구 - 헌재결, 2003.10.30, 2002헌마518, 도로교통법 제118조 위헌확인사건을 중심으로 -", 토지공법연구, 42, pp.629~649 (2008), 한국토지공법학회
- 장교식, "스마트폰 위치정보보호에 관한 법적 고찰", 토지공법연구, 54, pp.333~352 (2011), 한국토지공법학회
- 함인선, "정보사회에서의 개인위치정보의 보호와 이용에 관한 법적 고찰", 선진상사법률연구, (44)통권 : 44호, pp.1~24 (2008), 법무부
- Alessandra Suuberg, "Big Foot, Big Brother ... And a Big Step Backwards For Your Fourth Amendment Rights?: The Sithe Circuit Approves Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking in United States v. Skinner", Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop, 15, pp.319~ (2012)
- Danial T. Pesciotta, "I'm Not Dead Yet: Katz, Jones, And The Fourth Amendment In the 21st Century", Case. W. Res. L. Rev, pp.187~ (2012)
- Fabio Arcila, Jr, "GPS Tracking Out Of Fourth Amendmenr Dead Ends: United States v. Jones and Katz Conundrum", N.C. L. Rev, 91, pp.1~ (2012)
- Lindsay Noyce, "Private Ordering of Employee Privacy: Protecting Employees' Expectations of Privacy With Implied-In-Fact Contract Right", Am. U. Labor & Emp. L.F, 1, pp.27~ (2011)
- Sara E, "The Places You've been! Preserving Privacy In A Cellular Age", Fall V.B.J, 56, pp.14~ (2012)
- Silas J, "Wasserstrom, Louis Michael Seiderman, The Fourth Amendment as Constitutional Theory", Geo. L. J, 77, pp.19~ (1988)
- Zachary Gray, "GPS Tracking and Societys Expectation of Privacy In the 21st Century", Hastings Const. L. Q, 40, pp.145~ (2012)
