The US Supreme Court has been weighing in on the matter of cell phone privacy and privacy in general, and it’s clear the justices are taking a closer look at some of the more common forms of cell tracking.
While the case has been heard by the court for a number of months, this week, the justices decided to weigh in.
The justices were asked to weigh a request by the federal government to allow the NSA to use a cell site simulator to analyze the location of cell phones, as well as the locations of devices that were used to make calls.
The court heard oral arguments on the issue this week.
While both sides agreed that the NSA should be allowed to use this technique, the court disagreed with a request from the government to exclude the information that would help the government identify criminals who have been using cellphones to commit crimes.
In a 7-2 ruling, the majority said that the government was not permitted to exclude any information from the analysis.
The court said the government should have access to the location data of everyone who uses a mobile phone to make a call.
However, in a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the court, wrote that the information could not be excluded from the NSA’s analysis without “the government making a much more compelling case for its use” of the technology.
The NSA has been using a cell tower simulator to map cell phones using the technique called StingRay, which essentially turns a phone into a cellphone tower and sends out a signal to tell nearby phones where they are.
StingRay is also used to track down and intercept phone calls.
But it’s important to note that the court’s decision does not affect the use of StingRay by other government agencies.
For example, the NSA is allowed to keep StingRay data for up to three years after the end of its current authorization, according to the court.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the CIA was allowed to retain StingRay information after the agency was given access to it by Congress in the Patriot Act.
The US government’s use of cell site simulators has been controversial since the beginning.
The issue was brought to the forefront after a US judge ruled that the practice was unconstitutional and that it violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court said that a cell location information can be used for law enforcement purposes, including law enforcement investigations.
It said that law enforcement should be able to access the location information, even if the location is not directly tied to any criminal activity.
However, the Court noted that this is a difficult situation.
The decision comes a few months after the US government was forced to disclose to Congress the location records of a phone used by a suspect in a drug bust.
The phone was used to search for drug paraphernalia during a drug raid, and federal prosecutors later found that the phone had been used to call and text a person.
The information contained in the phone was later used to convict the suspect.