JSON_TABLE

JSON data is a wonderful way to store data without needing a schema but what about when you have to yank that data out of the database and apply some sort of formatting to that data?  Well, then you need JSON_TABLE.

JSON_TABLE takes free form JSON data and applies some formatting to it.  For this example we will use the world_x sample database’s countryinfo table.  What is desired is the name of the country and the year of independence but only for the years after 1992.  Sound like a SQL query against JSON data, right? Well that is exactly what we are doing.

We tell the MySQL server that we are going to take the $.Name and $.IndepYear key’s values from the JSON formatted doc column in  the table, format them into a string and a integer respectively, and alias the key value’s name to a table column name that we can use for qualifiers in an SQL statement.



mysql> select country_name, IndyYear from countryinfo,
json_table(doc,"$" columns (country_name char(20) path "$.Name",
IndyYear int path "$.IndepYear")) as stuff
where IndyYear > 1992;

+----------------+----------+
| country_name   | IndyYear |
+----------------+----------+
| Czech Republic |     1993 |
| Eritrea        |     1993 |
| Palau          |     1994 |
| Slovakia       |     1993 |
+----------------+----------+
4 rows in set, 67 warnings (0.00 sec)



mysql>

So what else can JSON_TABLE do? How about default values for missing values? Or checking that a key exists in a document. More on that next time. For now if you want to try MySQL 8.0.3 with JSON_TABLES, you need to head to Labs.MySQL.COM to test this experimental feature.
via Planet MySQL
JSON_TABLE

Unicorn Battle uses buzzwords to measure a startup’s ‘unicornibility’

When startup founders pitch at a TechCrunch event, they usually don’t just get on-stage and starting shouting out buzzwords.

Today, however, one of the teams at the Disrupt Berlin hackathon really did begin their presentation by rattling off words and phrases like “Internet of Things!” and “bitcoin!!” As they did, a unicorn puppet would pop up on their screen and shout “fuah!”

Turns out they were showing off a project called Unicorn Battle. It’s a web app that can listen to a startup pitch and award points every time the presenter uses popular words and phrases. So if you’re running a pitch competition, you can use it to determine which presentation had the highest density of buzzwords (or, as the Unicorn Battle team puts it, which startup has the most “unicornibility”).

Unicorn Battle was built by Marian Moldovan, Nieves Ábalos Serrano, Lucas Menéndez and Carlos Muñoz-Romero — a team from Madrid. Backstage, Moldovan and Muñoz-Romero explained that they’d gotten the idea after a finding a unicorn puppet while exploring Berlin. (As you can see in the video below, the puppet is pretty cute.)

The team actually participated in last year’s Disrupt London hackathon, where they created chatbot for refugees. Moldovan said that was a rewarding experience, but they realized that when building that kind of product aimed at social impact, “We aren’t creating any real value if we don’t follow up on the idea.”

So this year, they decided to do something a little different.

via TechCrunch
Unicorn Battle uses buzzwords to measure a startup’s ‘unicornibility’

Batman Ninja (Trailer)

Batman Ninja (Trailer)

Link

The Dark Knight is somehow transported to 15th century Japan. To his surprise, he finds medieval versions of some of his enemies and allies waiting for him. From Kill la Kill writer Kazuki Nakashima and Afro Samurai creator Takashi Okazaki comes Batman Samurai Ninja.

via The Awesomer
Batman Ninja (Trailer)

Video: Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II Meltdown

Video: Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II Meltdown

Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II

Iraqveteran8888 is at it again. This time he melts a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II AR-15.

The rules of meltdown videos are rather simple: An AR-15 upper is placed on a fully automatic lower. Magazines are pre-loaded, and the rifle is fired until it stops working. Often, the gas tube fails; sometimes a bolt may fail… whatever it may be that stops the rifle from functioning.

When the rifle can no longer be fired, the number of rounds run through the rifle are counted.

Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II Specifications

From the S&W website:

  • Caliber: 5.56mm NATO/.223
  • Capacity: 30
  • Safety: Manual Safety on Lower
  • Barrel Length: 16″
  • Overall Length: 35.0″
  • Front Sight: Adj. A2 Post
  • Rear Sight: Folding Magpul (MBUS)
  • Action: Gas Operated Semi-Auto

Now for the video.

For a rifle that costs between $580 – $620, that is excellent performance.

On a personal note I like that the sport II is available in different configurations:

  • No sights and standard handguard.
  • Factory sights and standard handguard.
  • Factory sights and Magpul handguard.

Round count was 820. Aside from the meltdown, there was not a single failure, such as fail to feed or fail to extract. That is a testament to the reliability of the S&W M&P series of rifles.

After watching the video, I am seriously considering the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II for my next AR-15.  If it took 820 rounds of full auto to break the rifle, chances are it would last me a lifetime.

Kevin Felts

Founder and owner of http://ift.tt/SRzL9i My blog – http://ift.tt/1BdNFeL Hobbies include fishing, hiking, hunting, blogging, sharing his politically incorrect opinion, video blogging on youtube,… [Learn More]

via All Outdoor
Video: Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II Meltdown

Archiving for a Leaner Database

There is an idea that data is sacred and needs to be stored forever. However, if you keep your data forever, you will, sooner or later, have a very large database.

In order to keep operations running smoothly, it would be useful to allocated data that is used more frequently in certain tables and keep data that is used less frequently in archive tables.


Some examples

You have a large table that stores transactions and it’s size is 200Gb. It is that way, because your company has been around for 5 years, but in the last year, your company has been successful acquiring new users and your data has doubled.

Congratulations.

In your database, you now have a table that has 5 years worth of data, but your application usually only needs about the last 1-3 months. There may be a use case where someone might require data about a customer for a period starting a year ago and there may also be a reporting request to aggregate data for the last 3 years. Therefore, to play it safe, we need everything in one table.

However, this greatly effects performance. It would be more helpful to try and separate those 3 concerns into 3 different tables:

  1. A table for a 3 month period for frequently used data
  2. An archive table that keeps all old and infrequently used data
  3. A summary table for reporting

With these, we are complying with the principle of Single-Responsibility and greatly improve performance for each purpose.

Having a ‘main’ table with only the last 3 months worth of data, greatly allows you to scale.
For example, even if your data doubles every year for the next 3-5 years, you still only have to manage a subset of that data. So if those 3 months once took a table 20Gb to store, the year following would be 40Gb and the year after would be 80Gb: These sizes are still very manageable by todays standards.
In addition, hardware and software improves over time, so there can be a legitimate expectation that simply by upgrading and updating, you can keep humming along.

Taking the effort to identify ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ data and allocating it to the right tables, can mean that your scalability concerns will be addressed for the long term.


How to implement Archiving?


Table _archive

One way to implement archiving, is by having a table that ends with _archive.

To enable this, you will need to be able to redirect your queries (from your code mainly, or by a proxy that can do that) to the main or the archive table, based on a particular criteria.

For example, if the date is less than today’s date minus 30 days, then send it to the archive table, if not, then the main table.

Another example may be, if the status column equals ‘inactive’ send to the archive table.

You would largely need to dig through your code for that table and wrap it with an IF statement to send to the right.

You would also need a data process that migrates data from the main table over to the archive table when it gets old or becomes cold.


Partitioning by Date

While this is not a different physical data model, this does help split the table into a few tables and achieving the desired purpose without application code changes.

Is it very common to partition your table to specify which data may be old and allocate it in the right partition, based on date.

mysql> CREATE TABLE `largetable` (
-> `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
-> `dateCreated` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
-> `status` int default 1,
-> `sometext` text,
-> PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`dateCreated`)
-> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.03 sec)

mysql> alter table largetable partition by RANGE(YEAR(dateCreated)) (
-> PARTITION p2016 VALUES LESS THAN (2017),
-> PARTITION p2017 VALUES LESS THAN (2018),
-> PARTITION p2018 VALUES LESS THAN (2019),
-> PARTITION p2019 VALUES LESS THAN (2020),
-> PARTITION p2020 VALUES LESS THAN (2021),
-> PARTITION pmax VALUES LESS THAN MAXVALUE);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.05 sec)
Records: 0 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0

The above example, allocates data by which year the row was created. Please note, after 2020, this sort of manual partitioning will require manually adding new years to this table. If you do it in advance, this can be done without disrupting operations.


Partitioning by Status

You can also have a partition (as mentioned above) to a status column to active/inactive and simply by using UPDATE to change the value MySQL will move over that row to the right partition. REPLACE or INSERT + DELETE will work as well.


mysql> CREATE TABLE `largetable` (
-> `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
-> `dateCreated` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
-> `status` int default 1, -- default active
-> `sometext` text,
-> PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`status`)
-> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.02 sec)

mysql> alter table largetable partition by list(status) (
-> partition pactive values in (1), -- active
-> partition pinactive values in (2) -- inactive
-> );
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.03 sec)
Records: 0 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pactive);
Empty set (0.00 sec)

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pinactive);
Empty set (0.00 sec)

mysql> insert into largetable(sometext) values ('hello');
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.01 sec)

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pinactive);
Empty set (0.00 sec)

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pactive);
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
| id | dateCreated | status | sometext |
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
| 1 | 2017-10-30 10:04:03 | 1 | hello |
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

mysql> update largetable set status = 2 where id =1 ;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
Rows matched: 1 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pactive);
Empty set (0.00 sec)

mysql> select * from largetable partition (pinactive);
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
| id | dateCreated | status | sometext |
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
| 1 | 2017-10-30 10:04:03 | 2 | hello |
+----+---------------------+--------+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)


Partitioning by ID

And lastly, you can partition on the sequence of your auto incrementing id key.


mysql> CREATE TABLE `largetable` (
-> `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
-> `dateCreated` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
-> `status` int default 1,
-> `sometext` text,
-> PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
-> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.02 sec)

mysql> alter table largetable partition by RANGE(id) (
-> PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN (500000000),
-> PARTITION p2 VALUES LESS THAN (1000000000),
-> PARTITION p3 VALUES LESS THAN (1500000000),
-> PARTITION p4 VALUES LESS THAN (2000000000),
-> PARTITION p5 VALUES LESS THAN (2500000000),
-> PARTITION pmax VALUES LESS THAN MAXVALUE);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.06 sec)
Records: 0 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0

The above example specifies which partition the row should goto based on the range of what the id number is. This example is more useful if your system does a lot of primary key look ups. It also helps with distributing the table sizes more equally when compared to dates, as you can have more data in recent years.


A word of caution

Partitioning on the right key is absolutely crucial and not easy. You need to analyse the queries that the application sends to that specific table and come up with a partitioning key(s) that works well and does not slow down the table – at least not the top 80% of the slowest queries.

The partitioning key would need to go into the PRIMARY KEY and in order for the optimiser to send you to the right partition, that key would ideally be included in the WHERE clause of all SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE queries. Otherwise, your query would run sequentially through each partition in that table.

via Planet MySQL
Archiving for a Leaner Database

Star Wars Symbolism: Lightsabers

Star Wars Symbolism: Lightsabers

Link

The inner being expressed as external power. ScreenPrism takes a look at one of the best fictional weapons ever conceived. They focus on the Skywalker’s lightsabers, but also touch on many of the ways that Star Wars uses the weapon as a symbol.

via The Awesomer
Star Wars Symbolism: Lightsabers

There’s an implosion of early-stage VC funding, and no one’s talking about it

Amid record amounts of capital raised by VCs worldwide, and a sharp rise in the number of private “unicorns” valued at $1 billion-plus, there has been a quiet, barely noticed implosion in early-stage VC activity worldwide.

The chart below is dramatic, and accurate. Since 2014, the number of VC rounds in technology companies worldwide has nearly halved, from 19,000 to 10,000, according to PitchBook. During that time, the drop in VC funding amount has been nowhere near as dramatic, highlighting that VCs are concentrating investment into fewer later-stage companies.

This is now a three-year trend, so cannot be “blamed” on macro or short-term factors. More worryingly, it comes at a time of unprecedented stock market valuations worldwide.

Global VC financing volume and value in technology companies

 This amounts to a crash in number of financings, and is the most extreme since 2001.

The crash has occurred in early-stage funding

The data shows by far the sharpest fall in activity has been in early- and seed-stage rounds. In fact, later rounds have remained fairly flat the last three years, and A and B rounds have fallen, but not nearly by as much.

Global financing volume into technology companies by stage

 The early-stage implosion is global

 The fall in financings has happened literally everywhere:

What caused this quiet implosion?

  • The era of funding apps is over – VC funding rounds grew dramatically after 2010 partly because of rebounding economic activity, but mainly in order to back a raft of B2C apps taking advantage of consumers’ emerging mobile-first behavior. With Android and iOS ecosystems well established, nearly every commercial segment saw a raft of new digital challengers, in everything from lifestyle to health, finance and a raft of special interest categories. Since 2014, early-stage funding for businesses with “mobile” in their description has fallen off a cliff.
  • SaaS funding has dropped sharply – In 2014, nearly 5,000 rounds backed companies describing themselves as “SaaS.” This year, that figure is down nearly 40 percent, to about 3,000. With so many SaaS companies having been created in the past 10 years, it’s hard to justify, let alone back, new SaaS startups, which are by now competing against established SaaS players, not legacy perpetual license vendors.

Global financings (value and volume) in SaaS

  • Even fintech has seen a quiet fall in activity – While nowhere near as dramatic as the fall-off in SaaS and mobile funding, fintech funding activity has dropped nearly 10 percent since 2014. Again, we believe this marks a natural maturation of many fintech segments, where winners have already emerged well-capitalized and new entrants in many fintech categories are fighting a costly uphill battle to grow quickly.
  • In general, VCs are doubling down on “winner take all” leaders – Since 2014, aggregate funding into late-stage rounds has hovered around $55 billion a year, though it will be somewhat lower this year. Today’s $1 billion private financing round was unheard of a decade ago. Recent $1 billion raisers Airbnb, Spotify, WeWork and Lyft have joined previous billionaire raisers, including Uber, Facebook, SpaceX and Flipkart, and point to a strong trend to concentrate “winner take all” funding into companies that have real potential to lead or dominate their segment.

Overall we believe 2012-16 was a bubble in early-stage funding driven by the fundamental platform shift to mobile. In easy hindsight, too many companies raised “concept” money, and an unprecedented number failed early and “failed fast.” The VC market for seed and early-stage failed with them, falling to half its size in three short years.

Arguably, post implosion, early-stage VCs have become more “rational” and we are unlikely to see the “spray and pray” approach that dominated a few short years ago. However, in absolute numbers, it also means there is far less capital available to early-stage companies today than a few years ago, and inevitably there will be a continued drop in the number of new startups, which cannot now rely on getting the first round raised easily in the current environment.

Whether the early-stage VC implosion is healthy or disastrous for the tech ecosystem remains to be seen.

Likely it will be a bit of both.

Featured Image: Jorg Greuel/Getty Images

via TechCrunch
There’s an implosion of early-stage VC funding, and no one’s talking about it

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Trailer Spoof

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Trailer Spoof

Link

“Pebbles? Try lifting an X-Wing.” R2-D2 let Luke’s Jedi school burn down, porgs were totally not made to prey on children, and Rey can’t decide if she’s Light Side or Dark Side in ArtSpear Entertainment’s spoof of the Star Wars: The Last Jedi trailer.

via The Awesomer
Star Wars: The Last Jedi Trailer Spoof

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Cell Site Location Info Case


The Supreme Court’s review of the Carpenter case — dealing with the warrantless collection of cell site location info — kicked off yesterday. Oral arguments featured Nate Wessler of the ACLU facing off against the DOJ’s Michael Dreeben in a case that could drastically alter the Third Party Doctrine.


From the early going, it sounds a bit like the court is leaning towards a drastic alteration. There’s a lot that can be read from the arguments presented by the justices — especially those by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch. After some of the expected arguments — the Third Party Doctrine, the post-facto privacy invasion that is 100+ days of location tracking, etc. — Gorsuch wades into pretty novel theory based on the property… um… properties of location data gathered by service providers.


Referencing the privacy protections statutorily mandated by 47 USC § 222 (and the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on GPS tracking devices), Gorsuch goes after the DOJ’s lawyer, asking him why records considered by law to be the property of carrier customers aren’t afforded the same protection as the Fourth Amendment “papers and effects” they keep in their houses.


GORSUCH: [O]ne thing Jones taught us is — and reminded us, really, is that the property-based approach to privacy also has to be considered, not just the reasonable expectation approach. So, if we put aside the reasonable expectation approach for just a moment, Katz, Miller, Smith, and ask what is the property right here, let’s say there is a property right. Let’s say I have a property right in the conversion case I posited with your colleague. So that if someone were to steal my location information from T-Mobile I’d have a conversion claim, for example, against them for the economic value that was stolen. Wouldn’t that, therefore, be a search of my paper or effect under the property-based approach approved and reminded us in Jones?


This wasn’t much fun for the DOJ’s representative:


MR. DREEBEN: I suppose that if you are insisting that I acknowledge that it’s a property right, some consequences are going to follow —


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Right.


MR. DREEBEN: — from that.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay.


[…]


JUSTICE GORSUCH: In my — in my hypothetical, if there were a property interest, you’re not here to deny that that would be a search of my paper and effect?


MR. DREEBEN: I’m not here to concede it either.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay.


MR. DREEBEN: And the reason that -­-


(Laughter.)


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay.


MR. DREEBEN: The reason that I can’t concede it is it’s a property right that resembles no property right that’s existed.


Justice Alito pitched in to point out the likelihood there’s no property interest in location records because customers don’t ask for it to be collected, can’t prevent it from being collected, can’t keep the provider from destroying records and, in some cases, can’t even demand a copy of these records. But while that may have briefly lit a fire of hope in the DOJ’s rep, Gorsuch did his best to extinguish the flame.


MR. DREEBEN: So, Justice Alito, those are a lot of good reasons on why this should not be recognized as a property interest. I can’t think of anything that would be characterized as a property interest with those traits. And it would be a — really a watershed change in the law to treat transferred information as property.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, what does Section 222 do, other than declare this customer proprietary network information –­


MR. DREEBEN: So that -­-


JUSTICE GORSUCH: — that the carrier cannot disclose?


MR. DREEBEN: It — it does that in conjunction with a provision that it shall be disclosed as required by law.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: So — so, let me ask you that. So — so the government can acknowledge a property right but then strip it of any Fourth Amendment protection. Is that the government’s position?


MR. DREEBEN: No, no, but I think that the -­


JUSTICE GORSUCH: And so — so could we also say maybe that they also get this property right subject to having a non-Article III judge decide the case, or quartering of troops in your home?1 Could we strip your property interests of all constitutional protection?


MR. DREEBEN: Well, those are pretty far afield. I — I think what’s going on here -­-


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Are they?


1 Shout-out to the least hardest working legal advocates in the nation.


After some discussion about this statute protecting the privacy of info gathered by cell phone companies, along with the government repeatedly pointing to the Third Party Doctrine, the justices discuss the sensitivity of the information being obtained without a warrant, pushing the argument back from the property side Gorsuch proposed to the detailed data being gathered daily (bank records are mentioned) by a variety of third parties. Again, the DOJ argues that no warrants are needed because the “search” isn’t performed by the government, but rather by the third parties themselves and the results handed over to law enforcement.


Justice Kagan had some problems with this particular approach.


JUSTICE KAGAN: I understand what you’re saying, you’re basically saying, well, because the government is going to a third-party here and doing it by subpoena, it doesn’t matter how sensitive the information is. It doesn’t matter whether there’s really a lack of voluntariness on the individual’s part in terms of conveying that information to the third-party. And we could go on and we could give, you know, other factors that you might think in a sensible world would matter to this question. And you’re saying that all of that is trumped by the fact that the government is doing this by subpoena, rather than by setting up its own cell towers.


Which the government can certainly do. (See also: Stingray devices. This is why this case about historical cell site location info will have a ripple effect on Stingray usage no matter which way it’s decided.)


Justice Gorsuch takes this assertion and brings it full circle to the creation of the Constitution and its resulting amendments.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Mr. Dreeben, it seems like your whole argument boils down to if we get it from a third-party we’re okay, regardless of property interest, regardless of anything else. But how does that fit with the original understanding of the Constitution and writs of assistance? You know, John Adams said one of the reasons for the war was the use by the government of third parties to obtain information forced them to help as their snitches and snoops. Why — why isn’t this argument exactly what the framers were concerned about?


MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think that those — those were writs that allowed people acting under governmental power to enter any place they wanted to search for anything that they wanted.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Isn’t that exactly your argument here, that so long as a third party’s involved, we can get anything we want?


MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think the search is being carried out under a writ of assistance by a government agent, operating under government authority; whereas here, we — the — if there’s a search in the acquisition of cell site information, then it’s the cell site company that is acquiring that information without governmental instigation, without –­


JUSTICE GORSUCH: The subpoena –­


MR. DREEBEN: — governmental agency -­-


JUSTICE GORSUCH: — being, though, the equivalent of a writ of assistance?


MR. DREEBEN: Oh, I don’t think a subpoena is an equivalent of a writ of assistance. A writ of assistance allowed the agent to go into any house, to rip open anything looking for contraband, no limitations.


JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. And you can subpoena anything that any company has anywhere in the globe regardless of any property rights, regardless of any privacy interests, simply because it’s a third-party?


The Chief Justice didn’t appear too impressed by this line of reasoning either.


MR. DREEBEN: So I — I think that, as Justice Alito was explaining, there is a traditional understanding that dates back to the time of the founding that subpoenas stand on a different footing from search warrants. And they do that because they are less intrusive, since they do not require the government going into private property and searching itself.


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why does that –­


MR. DREEBEN: And -­-


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: — why does that make a difference? The subpoena tells the person who gets it: this is what you have to do.


MR. DREEBEN: Well, I think that most —


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why is that less intrusive? The whole question is whether the information is accessible to the government.


But that’s exactly the argument the DOJ is making. No matter how long the records go back, no matter how accurate cell tower location data is, no matter how many points of data each citizen carrying a cell phone creates each day, it should all be no more than a subpoena away because the data is being held by a third party. This is Nate Wessler’s summation of the government’s assertions:


I just want to highlight that the — the government, Mr. Dreeben, as I heard him, conceded that the precision of these records doesn’t matter at all to the government’s theory here. They could be precise, I take it, to within a single inch. And the fact that a third party has custody of them would, in the government’s view, vitiate any expectation of privacy, which we think would be a very destructive rule.


It’s too early to say how this will turn out, but the with the exception of Justice Alito, very little sympathy was shown for the government’s arguments. The justices also had problems with differentiating between short-term collection of CSLI and lengthier collections. It did raise this question in the Jones case — suggesting long-term monitoring was more invasive than short-term tracking, but did not come to a bright line conclusion. Carpenter’s reps are suggesting a 24-hour limit for warrantless CSLI access.


This will be a tough line to draw, especially as courts have pointed out before rights do not spring into existence out of nowhere. If 24 hours isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation, why should three months be a problem? Or half a year? What then would stop the government from serving successive subpoenas to gather multiple days of location info, thus rendering the bright line irrelevant? If a decision is going to be made — one that “fundamentally changes the application of the Fourth Amendment to subpoenas” (as Justice Alito put it) — it really has to be all or nothing.


But the early skepticism of the government’s arguments expressed here is a positive development. This shows the court isn’t interested in rubber stamping an extension of the Third Party Doctrine nearly 40 years after the Smith v. Maryland decision. Given the amount of information gathered by third parties, it’s time for some fundamental change.

via Techdirt
Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Cell Site Location Info Case